Common Home Conversations Pathway to 2022: Recent Episodes
The Planetary Podcast
In Common Home Conversations, you will hear from leading global experts on how the proposal of recognizing the existence of an Intangible Global Common without borders–the Earth System - can change our relationship with our planet. The Common Home of Humanity proposes an ambitious new global pact for the environment. This proposal's cascading effects could be systemic and will assuredly produce huge impacts on international relations, economics, and open the doors to restoring a well-functioning Earth System. Common Home Conversations is the place to discuss a new social contract between society, economy, and the Earth System.
This week's episode features Inge Relph, Co-Founder and Executive Director of Global Choices. During our conversation, we discuss how the Arctic and Antarctic are indispensable cooling systems for our planet and the need to recognize the Arctic as part of our global commons.
This week's episode features Daniel Perell, Representative to the United Nations for the Baha'i International Community. During our conversation, we discuss the steps necessary to implement the right to a healthy environment such as establishing a regenerative economy and safeguarding our global commons, and ensuring a healthy and flourishing environment for future generations.
This week's episode features Fergus Watt, Coordinator for the Coalition for the UN We Need. During our conversation, we discuss the four-step pathway outlined by the Stockholm+50 Declaration and its potential to achieve the needed paradigm shift to address the world's critical ecological situation.
This week's episode features Lionel Chami, Special Advisor at the Global Pact Coalition. During our conversation, we discuss the need for a common foundation that would allow us to build an international governance system that addresses the environment as a whole. We also talk about how the tool of law can be utilized to reclaim the right to a healthy environment and the role the Global Pact for Environment can play in delivering environmental justice.
This week's episode features Jojo Mehta, Co-Founder and Executive Director of Stop Ecocide International. During our conversation, we discuss humanity's dependence on nature and the urgent need to get ecocide recognized as an international crime. We also talk about how ecocide is one of the root causes of the climate emergency and about the campaign's mission to get the International Criminal Court to amend the Rome Statute to include ecocide.
This week's episode features Helena Lindemark, Founder of the 2022 Initiative Foundation. During our conversation, we discuss the need to rethink our relationship with nature and how we need to recognize that our well-being and the well-being of the planet are interconnected. We also discuss the historic 1972 Stockholm Conference and how the Stockholm+50 summit can build on the legacy of Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme, not relinquishing our sovereignty but using it to further the common good.
This week's episode features Leida Rijnhout, environmental justice expert and Associate at the Stakeholder Forum for a Sustainable Future. During our conversation, we discuss how we cannot afford any more business-as-usual from the private sector or governments that damage the environment whenever and wherever they want. We talk about the costs of inaction and how exceeding our planetary boundaries will have devastating consequences for us and future generations. We also discuss the need for a global framework for environmental governance and law to maintain, protect, and manage our commons and our environment on this planet and how the 2022 Civil Society Declaration provides an opportunity for civil society to spark a global conversation and a chance to commit to transparent and accountable actions for our common home.
Interview Transcript
Transcribed by Otter AI
Kimberly White
Hello and welcome back to Common Home Conversations for part II of our discussion with María Espinosa, President of the 73rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly and former Ecuadorian Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Izabella Teixeira, Co-Chair of the United Nations Environment Programme's International Resource Panel and former Minister for the Environment of Brazil. Thank you both so much for joining us again today!
Now, we were talking about intergenerational equity and climate justice. One other thing I'd like to go into just a little bit further, and you both touched on this a little bit, is you're both from countries that house the Amazon rainforest. What could this declaration mean for Indigenous communities?
María Espinosa
Yet again, Kimberly and Izabella, we both come from Amazonian countries, as you said. In the early stages of my career, I devoted so many years to working and living in the Amazon and working with Indigenous peoples myself. And what I can tell you is that they have incredibly sophisticated knowledge about how to manage tropical ecosystems that are so sensitive, so vulnerable. You see a lot of green and a powerful primary tropical rainforest, but you know, any minor disruption can really alter the very sophisticated life cycle of a tropical rainforest. Indigenous peoples have lived there for thousands of years, and they know how to take care of the Amazon. And I don't want to be an essentialist, but basically, I think that there is a lot to learn. The Amazon is at a crossroads right now if you look at the deforestation patterns, at the land use, dramatic changes in the Amazon, but also the living conditions of Indigenous peoples. It's extremely worrisome in terms of the rights in terms of access to basic services.
Unfortunately, the Amazon, in our respective countries, continues to be our internal colonies. Look at Ecuador, but there are more cases like Ecuador. Ecuador's income mainly comes from oil exports. I would say practically every barrel of oil that Ecuador exports come from the Amazon. And that brings, depending on the oil prices, but let's say 50 to 60 percent of our revenue. And if you look at the living conditions of Indigenous peoples, and not only in Ecuador but in the Amazon, they are the poorest of the poor. This has been so evident, so obvious with the COVID-19 pandemic, in terms of access to health care, in terms of water and sanitation, in terms of food security. And I would say thank God that Indigenous peoples have their own organization mechanisms, their own solidarity networks, their own intellectual capacity to gather data to do their own assessments. There is a platform that was organized by COICA, which is the Confederation of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon, you know, really being self-sufficient because of the lack of concern, commitment, and responsibility from their respective governments.
And with that said, I think that, of course, Indigenous peoples are key players in finding a new way to manage the Amazon. They are key players; their presence is a transboundary presence. They have families across borders. They understand the ecological dynamics of tropical rainforests. And they also have to be at the decision-making table. They have the voice, they have the knowledge, they have the experience, but they are also subjects of a tremendous profound rights deficit. You name it; I mentioned that in terms of food security, in terms of access to health, in terms of quality education. So there is a lot that our societies need to do.
There is, very soon hopefully, a significant report produced by the Science Panel for the Amazon, which is hundreds of scientists, mostly from Amazonian countries, that have come together to produce this state of the art situation of the Amazon. I have the privilege to serve on their Advisory Committee. I share that also, Izabella, with Sebastião Salgado. We are both part of the Strategic Committee of the Science Panel for the Amazon. And we are working closely, very much looking forward to their report, and it is going to be, in my opinion, a game-changer. But I say that these are strong words, but we need to decolonize the Amazon, and the way to decolonize is to work closely with Indigenous peoples but also with Amazonian citizens in general. The situation of Amazonian urban settings and cities, for example, is one of the most challenging situations.
Well, I can speak about the Amazon for hours and hours. It's obviously one of my passions, but your question about Indigenous peoples, their roles, and Indigenous peoples from the Amazon, they need to have, they are entitled to have a seat at the decision-making table. But beyond that, Indigenous peoples have made a tremendous contribution to the Paris Agreement in crafting climate-related agreements. They have a strong voice when dealing with agriculture and multilateral decisions etc. Well, to make it short, they are strong, articulate, intelligent, and much-needed voices in the global governance arrangements and in the decision-making processes not only at national but also at international levels.
Izabella Teixeira
Yes, I fully agree with you. I would like to add two or three comments because my first perspective is something that you mentioned as a critical issue. We need to decolonize Amazonia. And for this, it's not only the national interest with national perspectives; we need to know Amazonia or the Amazon region. My feeling is that the world also does not know or has different ways to approach Amazonia without necessarily understanding all the dimensions of the Amazon's regions. Indigenous people connect almost all of the dimensions of the Amazon region. This is something very important to pay attention to because, politically, I used to say that Amazon puts Brazil in the world, and today Amazon keeps Brazil out of the world. Because we need to have a common understanding not all about the importance to protect for climate security, for example- climate stability of Amazon protection- but we need to understand much better what the Amazon means. And you go into the international community, and you know this better than I, that when you go into our countries that are part of Amazon regions, we are seen as middle-income countries. But when you go into the Amazon region, you have low-income countries. This is a huge mistake for the international community when you go to address funds, for example. International funds- "No, I cannot support you because you are from Peru, from Brazil, middle-income countries, etc." It's not true.
We need a new lens to approach Amazon regions, and in my perspective, I believe that you need to specialize in Amazon diplomacy to understand how to address common goods. This is very important to pay attention to politically and geopolitically because everyone's allowed to discuss Amazonia- even Brazilians- without necessarily knowing a lot about Amazonia. I'd like to mark this because you have your passion for Amazonia as I have my own. And but we cannot forget that in Brazil, 80 percent of people that live in Amazonia live in cities. I'm talking about 27 million people that live in the Brazilian Amazon. It's not one million people; it's 27 million people. So it's absolutely important to understand that that's why I mentioned so much about local needs. And Indigenous people are part of this because we also have a diversity that is so rich. The diversity of Indigenous people that you have in the Amazon region- you need to understand how to address not only their needs but their political role, or their innovative political role, as you mentioned. I fully agree that they must have a seat at the international tables. But we need to understand how we will approach the diversity of interests and knowledge and also the legitimacy of these Indigenous people not only in the Amazon region but also in South America.
And you know, to have the privilege to have the origin of our society based exactly on Indigenous people. This is fascinating because this means that it's a civilizatory trace for our societies that is exactly based on Indigenous people. That's why I do believe that you need to use this global debate, or this global commons debate, to make clear for our national society the importance of the Indigenous people for our national ID- as Brazilians, as Amazon people, etc. We need to understand better the role of Indigenous people for our future but also to recognize, as you mentioned, how our prejudice, our political prejudice, to understand their importance and to recognize the political space that they need to assume. My feeling is that we need to learn the importance of Indigenous people if you want to have this new perspective of the world, a new perspective of our region considering the challenge of development. It's not something that's like a part of our society that is distant of us- no, these are our roots, and they need to be closer, we need to recognize that you don't have all the elements to dialogue with them and even to bring them on board. We need to address, for us, the new political rules to learn with their experience and their knowledge. And more than this, in my perspective, we need to understand how they will share solutions and innovative perspectives for our sustainable and inclusive development.
My feeling is that not only the international community but in my country, most Brazilians don't know a lot about how to come together with Indigenous people. And I think that as you mentioned, the new report that is coming will be very illustrative about our challenges. And this is an innovative political perspective considering Indigenous people not only in the Amazon region but around the world. My feeling is that this is one of the critical political challenges we need to face if we want to go forward considering the global commons agenda and planetary boundaries. Without their knowledge, without their political role, without their political presence, it will be very tough to address concrete solutions for humankind in the next years. So it's again, a lesson from the Amazon region, something that's like a password, okay? If we're able to come with them, if we're able to learn with them, if you're able to address solutions based on their knowledge, and if you're able to understand our political role to move forward in this contemporary age, we need Indigenous people together with us.
So I think that for Amazonia, it's not only to stop deforestation but also stop the setbacks of environmental degradation and fragmentation and understand the role of environmental service. We need to go into the future, and we need to understand how the Amazon region will bring our countries into the new global development agenda. This is very fascinating politically. For this, we need to recognize the lack of abilities in our political domain to face the challenges and ask for the Indigenous people to support us and to be close to us.
Kimberly White
Thank you so much for your insights on that important topic. Now, unfortunately, human development appears to give value to nature only after it has been destroyed for resources and commodities and fails to recognize the true value of the intangible work of nature. Our natural world has been plagued by overexploitation throughout the years, and a 2019 report from the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services states, "The biosphere upon which humanity as a whole depends, is being altered to an unparalleled degree across all spatial scales. Biodiversity, the diversity within species between species and ecosystems, is declining faster than any time in human history". Furthermore, the recent statement for the Finance for Nature report highlights that the interrelated crises of widespread biodiversity loss, climate change, and land degradation require immediate action. A planetary system that supports life on earth is our most valuable asset. I mean, what could be more important and valuable to us, the intangible work performed by forests to stabilize climate or the cutting of trees to extract timber?
Maria, can recognizing our global commons as a common good without borders be the conceptual solution to trigger the paradigm shift we need to help us realize the true value of nature?
María Espinosa
Thank you for this question, Kimberly. And I think that there are perhaps three critical issues. Number one is when we were discussing the Amazon, and what to do about the future of the Amazon, there is a critical issue that we need to discuss and rethink, which is the very concept of sovereignty. Basically, most countries argue that we have to respect the sovereign right of states to use and exploit their natural resources as they deem necessary, which is fair enough. This is also embedded in principle 26 of the Stockholm declaration; it is true. And countries and states have, you know, the authority to decide what is best for its citizens. But it so happens that ecosystems, oceans, and climate, do not respect borders. Even if you look at the Amazon, it's not an Amazonian ecosystem because there are multiple ecosystems within the Amazon. One tends to think that it's a very homogeneous ecosystem; it is not. But even then, the diversity of ecosystems that formed the Amazon do not respect national borders. The same goes for oceans, as mentioned. The same goes for any ecosystem, wetlands, mountains, etc. There are so many mountains that are shared by multiple countries sometimes. So it means that to manage, wisely and responsibly, ecosystems and the earth system, we need to rethink sovereignty and sovereignty in terms of perhaps shared sovereignty in concerted decision making to manage a particular ecosystem, a particular service, for example, water resources. There are so many sources of water that are critical to the development of particular communities shared by multiple countries. Water basins do not respect borders. So, with that said, I think- without going into the details- we need to sit down and think carefully about resignifying sovereignty and also resignifying the common good and the public good. These are concepts that are critical if we are thinking about a new pact between nature, society, the economy, and politics- this new contract that we are talking about.
The second issue is about defining the commons, defining the difference between public goods and common goods. I won't enter into the exercise of concrete definitions, but there is a difference between public goods and common goods and the very concept of a common heritage and what are the governance designs that make it possible to manage our shared and common heritage for the benefit of humankind and how to go about it. A very interesting example that can be used for this analysis is oceans and the different conventions. Look at the Convention on the Law of the Sea and access to genetic resources beyond national jurisdiction, which is one of the critical negotiations that are happening at the international level, at the UN level. So what to do with that, and also the shared responsibility for the health of our oceans that are shared among so many countries.
Number three is if you resignify and you agree on a 21st-century definition of sovereignty or 21st-century definition of what is a common heritage for humankind, then the third question that we need to answer is, what is the governance, the framework under which we need to operate under a shared responsibility, concerted action, kind of governance model? So, this is, in my opinion, is one of the critical challenges of the 21st century. If we do not come to grips with these very fundamental questions, we are going to put at risk our very survival. I'm a stubborn optimist, as the late Kofi Annan used to say. I think that if we do not solve these critical issues, we are going to be in serious trouble. You know you name it, hunger, access to food, and health. Also, equally important is the issue of this trust deficit in institutions, including democratic institutions. This uncertainty that everybody's living under. This lack of direction and leadership that we are experiencing. So there is a lot of homework ahead of us. And, as I said, the declaration is very promising. This pre-declaration from civil society, Stockholm+49 that seriously considers the principles under which we are working, which is the issue of common public goods, the right to a healthy environment, and what are the governance arrangements we need. I think this is a key part of the conversation, and that should include, for example, our collective responsibility on dealing with pandemics, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, and what it means in terms of the health of our ecosystems and our Earth system.
Kimberly White
So, Izabella, this is the decade of action. How can the redefinition of the global commons help us do what is needed in the next ten years to address the world's environmental challenges better?
Izabella Teixeira
Thank you very much, Kimberly. First of all, I'd like to fully agree with the three points that Maria highlighted. I think that the critical political issue must be fully debated and solved considering the strategic perspectives if you want to go with the global commons agenda and how we'll face the challenge of this century. The combination of the global commons and this agenda that Maria mentioned before, on the other side of the coin, I think should help us to understand better how we are interconnected. Global commons will make clear what are the global new economy challenges that we need to put into practice if we want to have well-being, if we want to improve our lifestyles and if we want to have a better relationship between humankind and nature.
As a Co-Chair of the International Resource Panel, together with Janez Potočnik, the other Co-Chair launched the think piece on biodiversity challenges considering natural resource management around the world. But this is something easy to understand. You have four steps to make clear how we need to come together.
First of all, we need to know our true impact. The global commons will help us to do this; I do believe this. We need to be conscious- look to better understand the local realities and how fair and balanced global development is today. And also what it means- if I can use this expression- know about your true impact, "Yes, it's also in my backyard." We need to make sure that we know what happens with our life, our lifestyles, our countries, our way to live on this planet.
The second step is planning together. It means all on board. If you have a global common, you better understand how interconnected we are and what those responsibilities are. We need to understand the importance of planning together, to plan the future together, to understand the challenge, to review routes, and then to improve the ways that we want to promote development around the world.
The third step is growth with nature. This is something very important that was discussed the last time here in this interview. We need to grow. So we need to promote inclusive development but with nature. So finally, humankind is back to nature. If I can say this, we recognize that we are part of nature- this is what global commons means. Homosapiens are part of nature; we cannot forget it.
The last one is value nature. You need to value nature in different ways. You have the economic ways- this will come in with a multicolor economy, and I'm sure that will bring things in an innovative way. But to value nature, we need to understand its role in our life. We cannot value anything that we don't know. We cannot value anything if we cannot recognize its importance in our lives. We cannot value something that we don't know. So I think that when you go with the global commons agenda, I hope that you can make it clear not only that we have responsibilities and that we are interconnected, but that we can understand. We can learn how nature is important for our lives and how we are part of nature and that, as the human species, we do not have the right to destroy the ecosystems and other lives around the world. My feeling is that when you go into this agenda, I hope that I've mentioned before that you can have a new momentum of humanism around the world and that you can probably have a new "path forward" to bring new enlightenment for humankind in this century.
Kimberly White
Absolutely. And I would just like to add that I think much of the intangible work of nature is often undervalued because it's just taken for granted. Much of it is done silently or goes unseen. We can't see the atmosphere we breathe that is vital to our survival. We can't hear the work of the forest or the soils sequestering carbon from our atmosphere. And nature does this work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, and it does this vital work for free, and you know, recognizing a stable climate as an intangible asset, a common heritage of humankind can certainly be the way to give value to the work of nature without destroying it.
Izabella Teixeira
Yes, you're absolutely right. My hope is that the new generations understand this better than my generation. So I think that we can hope that we will change some, I do believe this.
María Espinosa
Yeah, and I think that also this very classical distinction between price and value. It's not that we are going to solve the destructive and dysfunctional behavior of human societies towards nature by putting a price tag, and that is going to be it. We have seen this, for example, in international carbon markets and how they are working. If nature is not part of the value system of a society, then the pricing is irrelevant because if it doesn't work. We're not going to stabilize the climate because we are going to put a price tag on carbon. Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that. And just thinking, you were saying, Kimberly, that nature does its work 24/7 because of the ecosystem services and all of that. But at the end of the day, nature can very well and, perhaps much better, live without humans- but humans, we cannot live without nature. Yes, it is as simple as that. Nature could not care less about us, we are one more of the species, of the millions of species, but we cannot live without nature, without the services that nature provides. But also, I think there is a moral, spiritual responsibility to ensure the existence and the continuity of life on earth.
Kimberly White
Absolutely, I think you both make excellent points. And it's just so important that we understand the work of nature, and that we recognize the value of that. I think as we're approaching this decade of action, this decade of ambition, what better time to do it than now?
María Espinosa
Well, indeed, you know, everybody's repeating the word action, and we need action, and we need action. And of course, we need to walk the talk. And, of course, we need action. And I think that peer pressure helps in terms of making sure that we are making the right decisions at the right time. Unfortunately, the cycles of nature differ from the cycles of politics. There is a mismatch between the times of nature and the times of politics. Basically, our responsibility is to bring the two cycles closer together; otherwise, it's going to be very difficult. But for us, you know, the voices of civil society, of academia, of science, of young people, of Indigenous peoples are more needed than ever.
Kimberly White
Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. Now, it has been nearly 50 years since the 1972 UN Conference on the Environment in Stockholm, the first global conference to prioritize environmental issues. The 1972 conference represents a historic turning point in the development of international environmental politics. Currently, we are facing converging crises with climate change and widespread biodiversity loss. Given the emergencies we face, do you believe that the 50th anniversary of this landmark conference could be a new turning point for multilateral environmental solutions to our shared problems? Maria, let's start with you.
María Espinosa
Of course, sometimes, when you sit at the UN, you hear governments saying, well, we don't need another summit, we don't need another conference, we really need to act and implement and deliver. It's partially true because I strongly believe that one of the challenges of the multilateral system is the implementation deficit. We have said and repeated over and over again, of this action, the need for action. So conferences are seen as talk shops, as mirages to solve real problems, etc. But in this case, I have to say that this Stockholm+49 and the Stockholm+50 is going to be an opportunity to rediscuss, to recommit, to rethink, because of the profound changes that our world has experienced in the last 50 years. I would say that Stockholm+50 has to be shaped and built into moments. A moment for analysis and assessment of what we have done with the declaration of 50 years ago, and what is the state of the world in. And the second part is action-oriented, an accountability framework, a commitment for the present and the future.
So I think these are political moments that need to be used in full by civil society, by governments themselves, and to recommit. I think it is time for recommitment, for a reflection, for analyses of what we have done wrong at the end of the day because the numbers and science- the science is telling us that we are not going in the right direction. And this is pretty obvious when you look at the climate; what we have mentioned during this conversation, look at the state of our ecosystems, oceans, forests, you name it, the extinction crisis. So basically, what is the model of society? What are the governance arrangements? What are the action-oriented commitments that are going to emerge from this Stockholm+50 conference? I think this is extremely important. At this point in time, we should make sure- societies, citizens- we should make sure that the Stockholm+50 really translates into commitment, into action, into accountability frameworks, into societal change. I think that the COVID-19 pandemic is going to help to do that. Because we have seen that the way we are living, the way we are facing the pandemic, it's really not the best.
It is not only about the environment, as I mentioned before, it is a civilizatory crisis, a planetary crisis that needs to be seriously addressed by world leaders but by societies as a whole. I really hope that Stockholm+50 also engages conversation in dialogue at the regional level, at the local level, that cities have a say because it's extremely important. The majority of people live in urban settings right now. So what is the voice of local authorities, of mayors of cities, of the feminist movement about these issues? So it is going to be a golden opportunity to unleash a global conversation in dialogue to recommit, to reflect, and assess, but also to commit to action-oriented, transparent, and accountable actions regarding our environment, the care for our environment. And we also hope that Stockholm +50 is going to give political backing and a push to the Global Pact for the Environment.
Kimberly White
Thank you, Maria. And now, Izabella, I'd like to ask you the same question. Given the emergencies we face, do you believe that the 50th anniversary of this landmark conference could be a new turning point for multilateral environmental solutions to our shared problems?
Izabella Teixeira
First of all, we cannot forget that when we had the Stockholm Conference fifty years ago, we had a momentum in the world that is completely different than what we have today. So I agree that we don't need conferences around the world; we need political rooms to bring people together to discuss the present and the future. And learning with our experience considering the past. If fifty years ago, it was important to join the countries around the world to discuss environment and development- or development and environment because it was a decision that was taken not based on other issues but based on development. I do believe that we need to rediscuss what development means in this century because we have different countries and have different requirements- political, economic, and social ones. Inequalities are one peak of this iceberg that you need to understand better in how you address this. There is no future for humankind if you're not able to address social inequality in the short-term perspective, be sure about this. And pandemics, again- the COVID pandemic- showed us that this is a critical issue. A really critical issue.
My second point here that I also think is very important is to have civil society engagement and commitment. It's absolutely important that you can have new political rooms to understand what civil society means around the world today, and also what is the role of civil society for the transformative change needed for multilateral environmental solutions. This is something very important to be observed because our experience shows that we cannot realize civil society in the international community, we can bring civil society with us, but we cannot necessarily share all the tools or mechanisms at the same level with civil society around the world. It's so unequal how we put into practice our recommendations and how indeed we can have international cooperation to play strategic roles considering the diversity of situations of civil society around the world. So something it's very important to be observed here. This is the quality of democracy around the world. Without democracy, it's impossible to address the solution that we're looking to address, considering the global challenges that nature is bringing to us now.
So it's absolutely important when you go into the international process that society must be recognized- who they are, what their needs are. This is something very important when you go into the past and go to 1972; it was part of the state members. It didn't have civil society there. In Rio in 1992, it was an open gate. It was really important. Rio+20 and the Paris Agreement also. But we have this movement around the world about global society engagement, and we need to understand that when we go to European countries, this engagement is completely different than when you go to the United States, Ecuador, or Brazil. Or in China, where you have some difficulties considering civil society engagement. So it's absolutely important that you understand how we will facilitate, how we will host the diversity of civil society around the world if you want to consider the challenge that the multilateral environmental system demands if you want to not only share the problems but share solutions. Diversity in multiple and creative solutions means bringing all on board with different dynamics and the same points of interest. Pay attention because politics are not easy. We can convince people, we can bring people together, but if you're not able to convince people to act based on their realities, forget it. The challenge is not based on small-scale projects. The challenge that we're facing now, the solution that we need, requires a really ambitious project.
And as Maria mentioned, we need accountability; we need transparency. It's very important to understand how we recognize that the multilateral international system today is, unfortunately, not enough to address the problems that must be solved considering common global issues.
We need a new way to believe in humankind, and that's why I fully believe that a green enlightenment, with political solidarity, is probably a really good path forward to move beyond Stockholm+50. And be sure that we're able to be part of this planet with new perspectives- sustainable ones- and bring really important inputs for international order and also for the multilateral system. We know what the problems are that we have today. What is not clear is how we want to be together and how we like to share not only responsibilities but hope. I do believe that we can do this. And I hope that this movement will bring the new generations, the new players, the new stakeholders to understand that if you are not in the past, you are today with us and will be in the future. So let's do it together. Let's manage this better. Let's reshape our interests more than this. I think that you really have a huge opportunity, I think that Maria mentioned this, we have to resignify our existence on this planet. Only we can do this. Nobody else can do this, only humankind. This is a moment that we need to be smart and ambitious. But we need to look for solidarity.
Kimberly White
Alright, Izabella and Maria- thank you both so much for joining us again today- it has been such a pleasure!
Izabella Teixeira
Thank you very much. Let’s fight for a better world.
María Espinosa
Wonderful, I have enjoyed this conversation very much and very much looking forward to seeing the world, you know, wake up. And like you, Izabella, I'm a stubborn optimist, and I think that we can make it happen together with vision and commitment, of course.
Kimberly White
All right, and there you have it. We will not solve human societies' destructive and dysfunctional behavior towards nature by putting a price tag on it. We are not going to stabilize the climate by putting a price tag on carbon. If nature is not part of the value system of society, then the pricing is irrelevant. It's time to give value to nature. The Declaration for Stockholm +49 is the opportunity for civil society to spark a global conversation. It's a chance to recognize a shared common heritage for the benefit of humankind. It's a chance to recommit, to reflect and assess, and to commit to transparent and accountable actions for our environment. We have a responsibility to ensure the existence and the continuity of life on earth for future generations. Remember, nature can live without humans, but humans cannot live without nature. It's as simple as that.
Transcript:
Izabella Teixeira
We need to promote inclusive development but with nature. Homosapiens are part of nature, we cannot forget it.
Maria Espinosa
To manage, wisely and responsibly, ecosystems and the earth system, we need to rethink sovereignty.
Izabella Teixeira
There is no future for humankind if you're not able to address social inequality.
Maria Espinosa
the voices of civil society, of academia, of science, of young people, of Indigenous peoples, are more needed than ever.
Izabella Teixeira
The challenge is not based on small-scale projects. The challenge that we’re facing now, the solution that we need requires a really ambitious project.
Maria Espinosa
Stockholm+49 and the Stockholm+50 is going to be an opportunity to rediscuss, to recommit, to rethink, because of the profound changes that our world has experienced in the last 50 years.
Transcript:Our planet faces a myriad of catastrophic environmental challenges- climate change, widespread biodiversity loss, overexploitation of resources, air pollution, sea-level rise, extreme weather, desertification. The science is clear- the state of our global environment is deteriorating at an unprecedented rate. In one of the few times in history, the prospects of future generations are far worse than they were for previous ones. Young people are in the streets and in courts to protest the stealing of their hopes, dreams, and futures. Now more than ever, we need fundamental transformative changes across our legal, economic, social, political, and technological spheres. Rising to the challenges facing our global community can only happen by reaching an ambitious international agreement that recognizes the most vital common denominator – the system that supports life on Earth, of which we are all a part, that connects us all, and upon which we all depend. It has been nearly 50 years since the historic 1972 Stockholm Conference- Now, a global coalition is calling upon UNEP and all Member States to drive a paradigm shift that recognizes the common ground upon which we can build a safe and sustainable future for human civilization. The Civil Society 2022 Declaration could be the needed starting point for that paradigm shift. In Common Home Conversations Pathway to 2022, you will hear high-level political and public figures, academics, and influential activists discuss what should be the content of this crucial declaration. Common Home Conversations is the place to discuss the challenges posed by climate change and possible solutions and ensure that the Civil Society 2022 Declaration can be a true gamechanger to help create a stabilized Earth. Join us to be part of this important global conversation.
Interview Transcript
Transcribed by Otter AI
Kimberly White
Hello and welcome to Common Home Conversations. Today we're joined by María Espinosa, President of the 73rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly and former Ecuadorian Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Izabella Teixeira, Co-Chair of the United Nations Environment Programme's International Resource Panel and former Minister for the Environment of Brazil. Thank you both so much for joining us today!
Izabella Teixeira
Thank you for inviting us.
María Espinosa
Thank you, Kimberly. We're delighted to be with you once again, and it's a privilege to be here in this conversation with Izabella Teixeira.
Kimberly White
Alright, leading up to Stockholm+50, civil society is organizing Stockholm+49, a global event focusing on building common ground and creating a common short declaration to spark a much-needed paradigm shift. In your opinion, what issues should be at the center of a meaningful declaration? Maria, let's start with you.
María Espinosa
Well, I think that it is extremely timely to come up with a renewed commitment to having a planet that sustains life and human societies after the landmark declaration at the Stockholm Conference 49 years ago. I think it is time for a recommitment, not only from governments but from society as a whole, to make sure that we respect nature, its life cycles, its very existence. On the other hand, I think that we need to think in the 21st century what it means 50 years ago, practically. The right to a healthy environment and to live in a healthy environment. The idea of the earth system being a common heritage and a global public good or a common good. And to also see what is the relationship between politics, nature, and the economy. I think that there is a need for a new commitment and a new pact between society and nature. So I think that this declaration cannot be more timely.
Kimberly White
Absolutely. Thank you, Maria. Now, Izabella, I'd like to pose the same question to you: What issues should be at the center of this meaningful declaration?
Izabella Teixeira
Oh, thank you very much, Kimberly. I think that Maria brings some critical issues, but I would like to add two or three things. We need to understand the right and the moral obligation to a healthy environment and what it means. Because we are coming into these new challenges, but unfortunately, not with the same conditions of development around the world. You have inequalities, not only the social ones- you also have environmental inequalities. We are looking forward to addressing the future with new footprints, but more than this. We're looking forward to understanding better how we go into the future to tell new stories based on the future, not based on the past. My feeling is that we need to understand what a healthy environment means for us, for humankind, considering the next years and what the challenges are that we need to tackle better.
We need a new expression of humanism around the world and what shared responsibility means, not only rights but also obligations. That's why I think when Maria mentioned that not only the government should lead the commitment- they need the commitment, a new behavior, a new understanding, considering from the societies. When you discuss societies, not only the global society- we need to understand local needs. We need to better understand how you can manage local needs with global carbon, how you can address local needs to achieve global carbon benefits. We need to understand that the global impacts should not be seen as transboundary impacts. It is something really important. It's science. It's a good player to come together with us because transboundary impacts it's an understanding that you had in the last century, and it is very important to be addressed, but global impacts move beyond transboundary impacts. This means that we as a global society, with societies interconnected at the global level, we have a new responsibility, we need to understand what it means, we need to understand how our gaps of development should be solved, considering the future that we were looking for, to design or redesign, but we need to understand the right to choose. This is something very important because we need a choice. This is the power that individually and collectively, as a society, to have.
We need to look for new alternatives for economic growth, not necessarily without limits. This is something very important to observe. You need to decouple the environmental impacts from economic growth. It's important. We need to better manage natural resources, and it's absolutely important. But we need to understand the limits of growth and economic growth and consider the challenge that the planet has opened today- like a Pandora box- say "Look, I cannot manage ten billion people on the planet without managing new conditions, a new way to approach economic growth and social development." So inequality is a critical issue.
In my perspective, I think that the declaration- not only the declaration but the process, the movement that global society is doing now- we need to look for a new enlightenment, we need to make sure that we can have a democracy and have a new relationship between humankind and nature. We need to move forward to understand that this is a big challenge for humankind, but also, if you want to change, we have the power to change, we as individuals and as a society. We need to put pressure not only on the states, but we need to put pressure on ourselves because we need to understand how we need to demand change. This is my perspective, considering the new declaration and the process that you put into practice now.
Kimberly White
This leads to my next question. International environmental law seems unable to bring about social-ecological change at the level and speed necessary to address the converging crises that we face. It has remained state-centered, beholding only to the state for the central source of its legitimacy and authority. Non-state stakeholders, NGOs, and civil society movements do not play any meaningful role in the negotiation, enforcement, or revision of multilateral environmental agreements, which still seem to be the mainstay of international environmental law. Maria, what should be the role of civil society in the design of this declaration?
María Espinosa
Well, I think that we hear time and again that we need a rejuvenated multilateral system, that we need a new architecture in global governance in what we created 76 years ago when the UN was established. The social fabric, the geopolitics have changed so much. The voice of civil society is very important, not only because they should have a say in global affairs but also because we are experiencing a crisis of trust and legitimacy in institutions. And in my opinion, the only way to counter this deficit trust is to make sure that all the voices are heard and that we really advocate for what the UN Secretary-General has stated so many times, an inclusive and networked multilateralism. What that means is that when you are to take a decision about the future of humanity because a declaration, a renewed declaration after 50 years of Stockholm, really needs the voice of academia, of younger generations, youth leaders and changemakers, women, Indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, the private sector, the philanthropic sector, to take part not only in the discussion but on the decision making. Because, basically, what we are trying to do, and Izabella was so clear about it, is to shape a new pact between society, the economy, politics, and the environment. We really need to make peace with nature. And what we have done in the past 50 years after Stockholm is absolutely incomprehensible. If you see that one million animal and plant species are threatened with extinction, and extinction is forever, it's forever, and that is a report from 2019. When you see that we have adopted the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, and most of them depend on healthy ecosystems, we see that we are not going to achieve the zero hunger target for 2030, the health for all and universal health coverage by 2030, the sustainable cities target, etc. And not to mention the Paris Agreement on climate. The only way to do it is a changing mindset, it's a whole of society's responsibility and approach, and of course, here, the accountability from the government is central. And when I say that, Kimberly and Izabella, I really say we really need for Stockholm+50, a political declaration to recommit to the main principles, but at the same time, to really work on a paradigm shift.
We cannot continue to do business as usual and expect different results. We are altering and affecting our biodiversity. Our climate change targets are completely out of reach if we continue on the same path. We are seeing plastic pollution, the acidification of our oceans, depletion of life underwater, etc. So all the indicators are not right. This means that we cannot continue to do the same things. We need, basically, a fundamental shift in our production and consumption patterns. We need a renewed political commitment. We need what Izabella mentioned so eloquently, we need leadership. And believe me, Kimberly, I'm not a supporter of these messianic leaders that come and change the world. When I say leadership, it's shared leadership between all of us. It's societal leadership. It's a mindset in society regarding the need to reconcile with nature. And you mentioned the insufficiency, the lack of outcomes, and tangible results of our international environmental law architecture, and it is true. We have conventions, protocols for everything. Some say that we have more than 1000 international environmental agreements, but we are looking at nature and the earth system in silos. So we have the conventions on chemicals, the convention on biodiversity, the convention on climate, the convention- well, not a convention yet- but the forest principles, and well, you name it, wetlands CITES for wildlife trade, etc. We have a series of pieces, but we do not have an umbrella, something that would embrace and reflect how we need to address our earth system, our commons, our common heritage. I think this is the main transformation since Stockholm almost 50 years ago. We have to remember the 26 principles of the Stockholm declaration, especially principle 21, speaking about the sovereignty of states to decide over their natural resources. And I fully support and agree with that. But we need to reinterpret sovereignty in the context of our common heritage and common good. As Izabella very well mentioned, what are the alternatives and the solutions to fight poverty and inequality at the same time as we preserve our earth system? They are not at odds at all, on the contrary, they're mutually reinforcing. And, as Izabella said so clearly, we need to decouple development and the fight against poverty to nature and ecosystem depletion. They don't need to go together, absolutely not. When you look at the pattern of CO2 gas emissions, you see where are the biggest emissions and who are the burden bearers, which is mainly the Global South and Small Island Developing States, for example. So there is a lot to do. The voice of civil society is extremely important. And we are all in this together as we say, but of course, governments are accountable and are responsible because we have elected them to represent our common interests. And back to you, Kimberly.
Kimberly White
No, absolutely, I completely agree, Maria. If we are to survive, it is imperative that we shift away from business as usual because what we're doing is not sustainable. Now, Izabella, can civil society be the vital component needed in initiating and driving the structural changes that we need?
Izabella Teixeira
Yes, and I think that society must do this. In my perspective, I fully agree with Maria when we were discussing the role of the Declaration and also this new momentum after 50 years. We cannot forget that 50 years ago when you have this conference, you have decisions from developing economies that oriented that the debate about environmental concerns should come together with development concerns. It's very important to go back at the history that you brought into the standard diplomatic movements 50 years ago and how developing countries talked about the challenge in 1972. Since then, we have been working hard considering this multilateral agenda. Environmental concerns move beyond concerns, there is a structural issue today, there is a geopolitical issue today. This means that the nations, the states, and societies- everyone- should understand their roles and make clear that the declaration is a new way to put our voices in these new requirements that we need in this century if you want to address concrete solutions for the problems that Maria highlights very well. But also more than this, as the Secretary-General mentioned, and as Maria highlighted here, there is a class of networked multilateralism that we need- transparency, access, and solutions.
My feeling is that it's absolutely important when you discuss the role of society and the science of the declaration is what is the design of the declarations, the process of engagement of societies, and how can we think together about our challenges? When you're going to address the declaration, to understand the different thoughts about our commitment, our different perspectives, how we see the problems, how you would like to address solutions, and how you would like to strengthen the multilateral system, it's very important that you can understand that, behind the scenes, you have nature, but you have human development as the core of our challenges. We need to discuss human development. We need to face the challenges. We need to understand how international cooperation, the multilateral system- or inclusive multilateralism- will bring human development in a new respect, considering the challenges around the world. We need to understand the impacts, for example, of the scarcity of natural resources and also the environmental conditions that put pressure on migrations or environmental displacement. What has happened around the world? What are the roots of the problem? This means that societies around the world need to understand the dynamics of the transitions. If you want to try this strategic perspective, you need to understand the short-term perspective, the impact of the short-term perspective, how we like to solve the short-term problems, how we like to create some transition conditions to facilitate to bring people together, so we know who you are. We know what are the societies around the world, we know how Indigenous peoples are looking forward to address their fight against the problems, you know, the private sector, what is in demand, but what's not clear is how to act together considering the transformative challenges that we're faced with today. Not only considering the COVID crisis but post-COVID crisis. COVID brings the future to the present. This is something very important to be seen. We need to understand how to act with purpose and also with responsibility.
I fully agree that civil society can be the vital component needed to initiate and drive the structural change that we need- that is right. But it's not only to start to be co-responsible to address, to act, to understand the trade-offs, to make it clear the difficult, to make clear the gaps, to make clear the transition message, make clear for people to bring hope in such a way that people can address not only dreams but concrete actions that will address local needs in the short perspective.
My feeling is that the international system must improve its performance. We are learning this with the COVID crisis, but the world is changing. As the world is changing, we need to strengthen the international system, but we need to bring society into the room. We need to understand what society means. If you need change, we need to dialogue with who wants this. We need to understand why they want this. If not, it is impossible to make the adjustments we need to ensure a new relationship between humankind and nature.
I do believe that civil society has more than the role, has the responsibility to design the declaration, but we need to understand what the demands are, how we can bring different societies together, and what are the common roots that will define or reframe the platform that humankind needs to face nature's challenges. More than this, to dialogue, as Maria made clear, that we need this inclusive networked multilateralism. We need to understand how the international community is closer to their national and supranational players. If not, you have a different understanding of the problems. You can have the common roots of the problem, but you have a different understanding of how to approach the problems, how to address solutions. It's unbelievable if you go into, for example, let's rename the developed countries and developing countries based on nature footprints, let's see what's happened. Let's try to make clear our responsibility. If you want to change, we need to understand our responsibility over the years and we need to make clear how we will be open to manage, to be free, to understand that you need the new equation to bring nature and humankind together. For this, we need to bring the young people into the room and make it clear that to address the future, we need to address the present. So my feeling it is very important to understand this year and the next years, how we will have this new declaration, and how we can mobilize people beyond the Stockholm+50 Conference.
Kimberly White
Excellent points, Izabella, and just to add on the COVID crisis. You know, recent research has shown that more than 70 percent of the emerging infectious diseases that we are seeing are zoonotic in origin. So it just goes to show how interconnected we are to our environment. Because you know that it all traces back to environmental degradation, the human encroachment into these spaces is essentially promoting and giving a chance for these zoonotic diseases such as COVID to enter our society.
Izabella Teixeira
Yes, I fully agree. We need to understand today, in the 21st century, what's the meaning of being interconnected? You have two new ages that are coming, the climate age and the digital age. What will be the citizenship that will emerge from this? How will we express our wills and our responsibility? How will you share our vision? So my feeling, as you mentioned, considering the COVID crisis and pandemic, that we are facing some situations that, in my perspective, should not exist. For example, vaccine inequalities. And how the countries closed their frontiers last year and how we are so worried or frightened considering the threats that we are exposed to together around the world. It's something very important to be observed, Kimberly-I don't know, probably Maria agrees with me- but it was the first time, my generation, that we face together, different people around the world, different societies around the world, at the same time, the risks to face death without alternatives. This is something very important to think about.
My feeling is that we need to better understand what humankind will demand from nature. Also, for societies around the world, if you want to have a better life, if you want to feel safe, my feeling is that this new future that is coming will give us some additional tasks to approach in different ways than we used to approach in the last years. I'll give an example. If we go into the new green economies, like bioeconomies, and we are discussing this today in my country and the Amazon regions about bioeconomy and stand up forests. What would be the role of the products from the forest to tackle hunger, not only in Brazil but around the world? This is very important. Also, how can we better manage poverty eradication with this stand up forest economy that is coming? The new business model, the new trade requirements to manage this, the new demands of consumers around the world. This is very important if you want to change and, in my opinion, not want to change, we need to change.
Kimberly White
Absolutely. Thank you, Izabella. So, we've seen a myriad of international initiatives and commitments from governments since 1972. Despite developments in environmental law and governance and enhanced knowledge of the issues at hand, we are yet where we need to be. Globally, we have failed to meet the Aichi biodiversity targets set in 2010 and, while progress has been made, and Maria touched on this a few minutes ago, we are on track to miss the Sustainable Development Goals. The 1972 Stockholm Declaration states that the protection and improvement of the environment is the duty of all governments. Maria, can we achieve the ambitious and urgent action needed through the initiatives of States alone?
María Espinosa
Well, I think that it's a whole of society effort and it requires co-responsibility and leadership. But here we are dealing with something that even sometimes I would say goes beyond the Sustainable Development Goals, which is the very survival of humanity. Human security is at stake. Kimberly, you mentioned the issue of zoonotic diseases meaning, health responses to an abuse of nature. I say, and this is sad to say, but it's real. Zoonotic diseases are a symptom. It's nature talking to us saying, "You have gone too far. You have breached the planetary boundaries. You, humans, have done that." The way of nature to speak back to us is basically when we have to face pandemics of the dimensions and the multiple impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. So I see this, the COVID-19 pandemic, as a symptom of a dysfunctional system that really ignores the planetary boundaries, and I think this is what needs to be healed through a new social contract. And when you speak about a declaration, the Stockholm+50 declaration or a previous declaration coming from civil society, putting forward the principles of the earth system as being a common heritage or the right to a healthy environment, etc., I think more than the declaration itself, because it can become one more of these international instruments that have an implementation deficit. It is very important to look at the process, to look at the awakening of a global society. Use the energy of young people, of Friday's for Future, of academics and scientists, and the private sector that is also, most of it at least, committed to what I would say is an imperative ecological transition. We don't have an option. And you mentioned the Sustainable Development Goals, Kimberly, but, you know, let's go one by one. Can we achieve the fighting poverty goal if we destroy nature, which is the very foundation of our survival? The short response is no. Can you reach the zero hunger sustainable development goal if we continue to destroy our soils and lands and increase deforested and degraded lands? The quick response is no, we cannot. We don't take the Paris Agreement seriously in our commitments on mitigation but also on adaptation and resilience building. And the response is obviously no, we are not going to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. So here, if we don't have a choice, our survival as a species is under threat, and we have a huge responsibility. Even when we make the decisions as citizens, when we make decisions on our consumption choices, when we make decisions when we elect a president. Sometimes we elect presidents without looking at the ecological transition plans for x or y candidates because things are really not going well. If you look at the climate indicators, they're really frightening. You know, the last five years have been the hottest in recent history, which means that we are so far behind not only of the Sustainable Development Goals but also regarding the Paris Agreement and our Nationally Determined Contribution, which is the national commitments on reducing CO2 emissions and climate-related emissions. So I think, to make the story short, when we say it is enough to get the commitment and to have the government sign a particular declaration, even if the declaration is perfect, it's wonderful, it's all encompassing, it's exactly what we wanted. If there is no societal ownership and co-responsibility, it's going to be extremely, extremely difficult.
Kimberly White
I agree with you, Maria, the health of our people, of our nations, depends on the health of our environment. So it's really important that we prioritize that moving forward. And you mentioned our consumption patterns. One thing I'd like to add is that it's been estimated that upwards of one million species are on the brink of extinction right now- which you mentioned earlier. Research from the World Wildlife Fund found that the leading drivers of the species loss we are witnessing are the overexploitation of species, agriculture, and land conversion that is linked to our consumption. And a lot of that can be linked to consumption, specifically in wealthier nations such as the United States.
María Espinosa
Absolutely, absolutely. So, there is a lot of homework ahead of us. And as I say, not only to contribute to draft the declaration, but to contribute to change mindsets, to change our choices, how we consume, how we coexist with others, how we relate and commit to be active citizens that are co-responsible to the future of our countries, but also to the future of humanity. And I think that we have learned incredible lessons from young leaders worldwide as well.
Kimberly White
Absolutely. Now, Izabella, given your expertise, what would you say are the main challenges of getting states to commit to taking urgent immediate action on environmental issues such as climate change?
Izabella Teixeira
Oh, this is an excellent question. But my feeling is that it's a simple answer. National societies are key players to make the states change. You need to discuss it with our national societies, the strategic perspectives that you have, as societies, as countries, considering the global challenges that we need to tackle like climate change. It's not only climate change; you have three global environmental crises, as you know, you have climate change, you have biodiversity loss, and also pollution. And if you want to change, if you want the government to change, if you want the government to take legitimate actions on environmental issues, we need to pressure, we need to change. If society is not able to change, the states will probably postpone everything as they used to do in the last few years. We took more than 20 years to achieve a climate agreement where everyone, every country, would be on board. You have the first understanding about shared responsibilities considering developed economies. And almost 20 years after the Kyoto Protocol, we are not able to address the solutions that the climate panel recommended should be addressed. And finally, we have a new century. And you had the understanding that developing economies or emerging economies should join the developed economies to address concrete solutions. As Maria mentions, if you go with the global emitters, carbon emitters, countries, and societies, we can see that to have not only developed but developing economies today. What it means is that we need to understand that we do have the responsibility, but of course, we need to find a new way to share our strategic perspectives, considering the global threats, but also our local needs and an innovative way to promote sustainable development. As mentioned before, you have Sustainable Development Goals, I was part of the team that proposed this to the Secretary-General, and you also have the Agenda 2030. But indeed, you have now a new time frame, considering the decade of transition and you have climate change, considering the Paris Agreement limitation that probably you have this new proposed framework on biodiversity after COP15 that we need to bring things together with the rationality, a political rationality, that's not necessarily as clear for other societies around the world. So we need to go beyond the silos, the political, economic silos that we have today in the international community, and we need to bring things together. That's why I mentioned before, the declaration of the common good or planetary boundaries, a new understanding of the civil society around the world should be so provocative, to make sure how we are interconnected not only because of our promise, but because of the solution that we need, and also how we need to share a new understanding about timing.
If you want to address the main challenge and get the states committed, we need to get societies committed. This means that national demands, and also international interests, like international trade, should play and must play an innovative role, not only to put pressure on but also to rebuild. This interest would make sure how we can move faster to draft solutions, concrete solutions because, in my opinion, timing is also different today. As you mentioned before, and also Maria made it clear when we discussed zoonotic disease, in my opinion, it's a symptom, I fully agree. But what are the roots of this? And you go with deforestation. Deforestation has put pressure on the world for the last 30 years. For example, Amazon deforestation. And that society like Brazil, we learned how to tackle this, but unfortunately, we have political leaders that put us back to backsliding. But, indeed, what I was saying, zoonoses what that means is to have different species that come together and have a disruptive ecological process that probably will expose humankind to new diseases. And this means that you need to better understand the cause and effect relationship. You need to make clear this not only threatens, but this means that we need to prevent, we need to avoid these situations and to find a new way to promote human development and to better understand how we can have a new relationship between nature and humankind. So nature-based solutions, as you're sharing today, with different perspectives around the world, this is very important to have an inclusive political approach. People need to feel part of the new solution arrangements with responsibilities and a step-by-step process. Building confidence is not an easy task, and everyone's noticed. But if you're not able to build confidence based on the realities and not on perspectives, you will probably fail again. Okay, we need to go into the realities, we need to understand how local needs make Mary, John, Harry part of the solutions and make clear that we have to face step-by-step to understand how we can manage the trade-offs and how we have a common understanding about how to be fair- and this is not easy.
In my opinion, we need to make clear the shared responsibility with the States and political leaders, and for this only society can go there, make clear, try to understand what are the trade-offs. Try to make sure what the priorities are, try to make sure how much time you take to address some concrete solutions, and convince people that this is a new way not only to face a global challenge but to improve your quality of life. If people will understand when we discuss at the local levels that I want to address solutions to improve your quality of life and that you are responsible to maintain this new environment that is coming. So if we're able to go into that, not only to dialogue at the international level, not only to go into new to go to New York or France or even Beijing, but to go into the cities and you go to this small city and discuss with people that we are looking for, together, to address global solutions based on and considering local needs, be sure that you have additional pressure on governments. And it makes sense, for the politics, that we need to change today, not necessarily the next ten years. The changes that need to be done need to begin now. And for this, we need to have a clear understanding of the problems, yes, but you have this. We need to better understand how the solution will come together considering the diversity of societies around the world, considering the diversity of alternatives and solutions that we have around the world, and how this diversity fits better for our local needs in a local reality. This makes sense. This is the common language that you need. We need to bring people together-the common understanding, the common language that we are acting together. Consider our specificities, our diversity, but we are humankind. You cannot forget it and do your part of nature. So this is a big challenge for me. To make it clear, that nature is something touchable. You can see, you can see nature, you can see the landscapes, you can see our rivers, etc. So people must act looking for a better life, and they can never forget about the limits that you have today, the political limits and limits. We need to face this, and also we cannot forget about local needs. As soon as they go to address local needs in short-term perspectives, be sure that you have a huge engagement of civil society around the world, and you'll be able to change the States. Thanks, you back to Kimberly.
Kimberly White
Thank you, Izabella. Now, in recent years, we've witnessed a shift in the conversation surrounding climate change, with an increased focus on human rights and climate justice. In April, the German Federal Court of Justice ruled that the nation's current climate legislation limits the rights of its youth, violating the country's constitution. The German court's decision is largely considered to be a win for future generations while providing a major boost for future climate litigation around the globe. Izabella, as the world develops solutions and strategies to tackle the climate emergency, do you believe we have an obligation to work toward intergenerational equity in order to safeguard future generations?
Izabella Teixeira
Yes, of course. Here in Brazil, you have a recent political movement, very interesting, that I support as a former Minister, of a group of young people that took the decision to sue the government, the Brazilian government, because of the update of the Brazilian decision. It's fascinating, because it's exactly this, as I mentioned before, we need to understand the local needs and the future is today. You need to mobilize young people, new generations, everyone to come and to better understand what, as you mentioned, was intergenerational legacy means. To discuss the future, we need to discuss the present. It's something absolutely concrete for politics. We need this, you cannot forget this. So when you go, and to take a decision today on climate or nature's price, for example, we are bringing the future to the present. This is the urgence of the present, Kimberly. Make good things happen today. It's absolutely important. You cannot tell the stories based on the future, to say that you have only to 2050. No, we need to make clear how it will be better in 2050, but we need to make clear how it will be better in 2025 and 2026. And that we are part of this process that you can change your reality, not only somebody that you don't know who it is. So my feeling is that it's a transformative process. And to be transformed, to have this transformative process, we need to have actions today in the present. If not, we cannot understand what the future means. And the legacy, it's part of our history today, or the new stories that you want to tell about the future. We need to understand that we have a legacy. You have an asset if you go step by step. It's not something untouchable, something that you cannot see. You cannot postpone anything that means solutions for humankind and for nature today.
Kimberly White
Absolutely. We don't have time to wait. We need to take ambitious action right now. Now, Maria, how could the foreseen declaration make a difference on this critical topic?
María Espinosa
Well, I cannot agree more with Izabella that the issue of dealing with the future starts today. And the future starts today, as we speak. The issue of intergenerational climate justice, for example, but I would say intergenerational justice, in general, is at the center, not only regarding our future plans but regarding the policy choices and decisions that we take today. I've been a great supporter and an advocate of young people being active participants in decision-making tables. And I'm not only saying this, when I was President of the UN General Assembly, there was no high-level meeting, no global conversation without having young changemakers at the table. And not only as tokens, and not only to co-op their energy, but on the contrary, you know, being active participants, where you need to take very seriously their worldviews, their commitments, their positions, their agendas, and I think it is the only way to build a better present and a better future for all. You know, we are so used to repeating the phrases, '...young people are the future,' No, they are the present. They are active, they are engaged, they are well informed, well networked, active participants in social media. And they have to be part of this collective effort of this shared leadership and concerted action in favor of maintaining and sustaining our earth system. And, of course, this has to be translated into the declaration, the Stockholm+50 declaration. There are so many things that continue to be relevant when you look at the 1972 declaration. But there are so many other issues that have changed dramatically. Fifty years ago, we weren't even thinking about the depth and the scope of the climate crisis and the urgent need not only to change our consumption patterns but also to invest in mitigation and adaptation, especially in the developing world, and technology transfer etc. In '72, we were not even thinking about a staggering extinction crisis. We were not even thinking about the technological revolution and how to use technologies, and the new technology is not to destroy but to protect our ecosystems and the earth system. We weren't even thinking about the deepening of inequalities and this symptom of a dysfunction of society such as the COVID-19 pandemic. And let's be clear, it's not about only understanding the origin of zoonotic diseases, such as COVID or SARS or influenza for that matter, not only to understand that but to also look at what has happened, because let's only look at the trillions of dollars of recovery packages that are being poured into the economy, especially of the countries of the North. Where is the money going? Where are the trillions going? There are so many assessments and studies that are so worrying, saying, for example, that less than 2 percent is being invested in sustainable growth or in the green economy, or in a regenerative economy. How much has been used with an ecological green mindset? It's very little. The same when you look, for example, at investment in women, in rural women, in women's rights, in gender equality, and, unfortunately, we are seeing the same old, normal. And the old normal has brought us to the situation we are in now. If you look at how the world is behaving on the access and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, it shows clearly that we are in a crisis of solidarity, in a crisis of cooperation, that our multilateral system needs to be fit for purpose. I think that all these critical issues should be put into the dialogue table when we are drafting this Stockholm+50 declaration. It is not only about the environment, and let's be clear, it is not only about the environment. It is about our development models, about our value systems. It is about the way we think about the future. It is about our collective security and our human security. It is about living in harmony, in a way. These are already made phrases, but they make sense: how to reconcile with nature. We have a long-lasting debt with nature's integrity. And I think that this declaration sometimes is a pretext or a raison d'être for a new global pact between nature, the economy, and society, as we mentioned. And we know that the Global Pact for the Environment is a work in progress, and with great challenges ahead, but beyond the declaration, I think that the Global Pact for the Environment is going to be also this platform for encounters for concerted action, for a renewed commitment to the basic values of solidarity, coexistence, and not only the rights of humans to live in a healthy environment, but also the rights of the existence of nature, its life cycles, the integrity of its ecosystems. I am a great defender of that because I work directly with the drafting of the Ecuadorian constitutions that, as you know, recognizes rights to nature. And this, of course, is a paradigm shift because, usually, nature is seen as an object and not as a subject of rights. But this is part of the mindset that needs to change with loud voices from society, from young leaders, from women, from Indigenous peoples, as mentioned before.
Kimberly White
All right, and there you have it. We cannot continue to do business as usual and expect different results. The old normal has brought us to the situation we are in now, with climate change, plastic pollution, the acidification of our oceans, air pollution, overexploitation of resources, biodiversity loss, and the list goes on. Human security is at stake, and our survival as a species is under threat. It is time for a renewed commitment to the basic values of solidarity and coexistence. The right of humans to live in a healthy environment. The rights of the existence of nature, its life cycles, and the integrity of its ecosystems. A new pact between society, the economy, politics, and the environment. The 2022 Civil Society Declaration can bring a paradigm shift that recognizes the common ground to build a safe and sustainable future for human civilization, a common good that belongs to all generations. That is all for today, and thank you for joining us for this episode of Common Home Conversations. Please subscribe, share, and be sure to tune in on July 14th for part II of this episode with Maria Espinosa and Izabella Teixeira. And visit us at www.ThePlanetaryPress.com for more episodes and the latest news in sustainability, climate change, and the environment.
Transcript:
Izabella Teixeira
We need to understand what a healthy environment means for us, for humankind, considering the next years and what the challenges are that we need to tackle better.
Maria Espinosa
We need to reinterpret sovereignty in the context of our common heritage and common good.
Izabella Teixeira
We need a new expression of humanism around the world and what shared responsibility means, not only rights but also obligations.
Maria Espinosa
Let's be clear- it is not only about the environment. It is about our development models, about our value systems. It is about the way we think about the future. It is about our collective security and our human security. It is about living in harmony, in a way.
Izabella Teixeira
we need to have actions today in the present. If not, we cannot understand what the future means.
Maria Espinosa
We need to make sure that we can have a democracy and have a new relationship between humankind and nature.
Interview Transcript
Transcribed by Otter AI
Kimberly White
Hello and welcome to Common Home Conversations. Today we're joined by Thomas Boudreau, Professor of Conflict Analysis and Dispute Resolution at Salisbury University. Thank you so much for joining us today!
Thomas Boudreau
My pleasure. Thank you for inviting me.
Kimberly White
So, you're a Professor of Conflict Analysis and Dispute Resolution at Salisbury University. Can you tell us more about this and the focus of your current research?
Thomas Boudreau
Yes, we're a relatively new department. We grew out of one course taught by a charismatic professor, Phil Bosserman, and now we're an undergraduate program and a graduate program. In 2018, we were recognized as the second-best program in conflict analysis in the United States. So in a very short time, we've made a mark both in our undergraduate teaching and our graduate program.
Kimberly White
That's fantastic- congratulations! So earlier this year, renowned naturalist David Attenborough told the UN Security Council that climate change is the "biggest threat to security that modern humans have ever faced." Similar sentiments have been expressed by leading climate and environmental scientists. Now, you have proposed an Earth Armistice to address this existential threat. Could you please tell us more about this and the benefits such a resolution could have for our global community?
Thomas Boudreau
Yes, well, first, I'd like to recognize the extraordinary work and achievement of Sir David Attenborough. He's just a world treasure, and we should all thank the United Kingdom for sharing him with the rest of us. Extraordinary individual. Sir David is absolutely correct in characterizing climate change as the greatest threat that humanity has ever faced and certainly faces today. And we have to address this in the next 5 or 10 years, or it will become a runaway freight train. And I think if we wait too long, it'll be too late. So I asked myself, "what organization can make a global law with one vote in one day in one place?" And that's obviously the UN Security Council. And the UN Security Council is charged with the maintenance of international peace and security. And there is no question that climate change is increasingly threatening the maintenance of international peace and security and will continue to do so in major ways in the coming years. So, the UN Security Council is a natural place to address this. It also, by the UN Charter, is responsible for the regulation of armaments. And so the Earth Armistice idea is, namely, for the UN Security Council to vote. As I say, and they could do this in one vote, it's not simply a resolution. They have the power, the legal authority under the charter, to make binding decisions on all the member states. That's why the great powers watch the council like a hawk. But they could vote an Earth Armistice; they could approve it, which would require every state to cut from 10 to 20 percent of its current defense budgets and devote it exclusively to addressing climate change. And to do so, nation states have to do the obvious- namely, redefine and expand their understanding of national security to include the threats that climate change presents to us today and will increasingly present to us in the future. I don't think the Earth Armistice will be adopted today or tomorrow. I think it will be adopted at some point. My fear is that it will simply be too late to address the coming storms that are now inevitable.
Kimberly White
Now, you said that the Earth Armistice would be essential to ensure sustainable development as well as achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Could you please elaborate on that?
Thomas Boudreau
There will be no sustainable development unless we develop a sustainable climate. But to do so will involve enormous costs as well as opportunities. The transition from a carbon-based global economy to a green-based global economy will involve tremendous opportunities and new jobs in a variety of sectors. And what's needed is the funding, and the global militaries now spend almost $2 trillion a year on national defense defined in terms of defending the nation state against other nations. What they need to do- and this you see this thinking already among the military, unfortunately, don't see it as much with the politicians- but what you need to do is redefine your national security in terms of sustainable development. To do that, you need to invest in green economies. There's tremendous work to be done in the conversion of current carbon-based energy sources to green sources, such as solar and wind, and making them resilient and ensuring that they can sustain the coming winds and weather that could do a lot of damage to existing infrastructure. At the same time, you want the green economies to develop the necessary negative emission technologies, or carbon sequestration, to start pulling carbon out of the atmosphere. And we've made very little or no progress in this area whatsoever, and that's, again, a reason for the Earth Armistice. Creating negative emission technologies can create hundreds of thousands of jobs, especially in the developing world, and thus encourage sustainable development and the very rapid emergence of green economies throughout the globe.
Kimberly White
I'm glad you brought up carbon sequestration- I think that's such an important part of tackling climate change. People don't realize how important natural solutions- such as soil- are to our environment and to the health of our planet.
Thomas Boudreau
Well, I think we're gonna have to go beyond soil sequestration or carbon farming, although that can play a critical role. I think we need to try a whole variety of approaches to carbon sequestration using the land and the oceans. And I'd like to make a distinction between carbon sequestration, which is land or ocean-based, and geoengineering, which is the spraying of aerosols in the atmosphere, which I am very skeptical of. Because we had an experience in the States with sulfuric acid killing the lakes, acid rain, and I think the current plans for the use of aerosols in the atmosphere, solar geoengineering, could be a repeat of that acid rain experience, if not worse.
Kimberly White
Absolutely, the risks associated with solar geoengineering are far too great. I believe that restoration efforts are essential moving forward. For instance, with the peatlands. Peatlands cover just three percent of our land globally, yet they are a carbon sequestration powerhouse. They store over 550 gigatons of carbon. And recent studies have shown that restoring some of these habitats could prevent the release of as much as 394 million tons of CO2.
Thomas Boudreau
There have to be massive restoration efforts of reforestation, aforestation, which means planting forests in areas where they don't exist. There's going to be the increasing problem of droughts and massive wildfires. The forests have to be planted or reforested in areas that aren't going to burn down anytime soon. Personally, I find the phenomenon of green lawns in front of homes to be hopelessly obsolete; I think people should get tax breaks for planting trees on 50 percent or more of their lawns. There are areas in Montgomery County, north of DC, that have one home on top of a hill surrounded by a huge lawn that was carved out of a forest. And they cut the lawn every week, and deer eat on the lawn at night, but they could replant that lawn with trees. And if people just did that, in areas where there was still a lot of rain, we could significantly cut into the existing carbon at least on a seasonal basis that's up there already in the atmosphere. But every single technique has to be tried at this point. Because in 2018 and 2019, we put 43 million tons of CO2 up in the atmosphere. Despite Paris, despite all the promissory notes to cut carbon. It was the most carbon we have ever put up in the atmosphere, I'm talking about us as human beings, so we really need to start pulling some of this out if we have any hope of keeping temperatures down to a livable level. So we have to try every possible nook and cranny of carbon sequestration that's available to us.
Kimberly White
Absolutely, and it is important to ensure that these solutions do not exacerbate other issues. As far as large-scale restoration efforts go, there have been several great initiatives. Pakistan and their billion trees tsunami, which soon turned into their 10 billion trees tsunami, if you look at the before and after pictures of what they've been able to do with the land as far as restoration, it's very impressive.
Thomas Boudreau
Well, absolutely, I mean, in terms of preserving biodiversity, we need to restore the forest and as much wilderness as we can. It also creates jobs, and that's where Earth Armistice would provide funding, would provide the actual money. People trying to get money out of governments will be very difficult as we face declining agricultural productivity and other consequences due to climate change. So getting money out of existing budgets will be very difficult unless we all agree to, together, simultaneously, cut our military budgets.
Kimberly White
Now, in your article "Preserving Nature and the Nation: Redefining State Sovereignty in the Anthropocene Age," you relate that in the face of accelerating global climate change, it's time to reconstruct the legal definition of sovereignty, ensuring that it includes the state's primary responsibility to preserve life. Meaning it must protect both the nation and nature, or you say the "nation-state may well proveto be the modern dinosaur, doomed to extinction." Current environmental law appears to be designed to deal only with the tangible things of nature within territorial borders. Given your expertise, how do you think we can best move past this and protect the intangibles of nature that we all share and need for life on this planet?
Thomas Boudreau
That's actually a very good and very complex question. First on, on redefining national sovereignty, it's become almost this absolutist definition that doesn't allow any international law, or very little, to percolate within the domestic jurisdictions of many states and courts. And that, of course, is changing. And a variety of scholars have noted that. What I argue for is that the state, in view of climate change, the state has to recognize that its fundamental basis for legitimacy and sovereignty is its ability to preserve life and nature. The nation is the agency of regeneration- nation comes from natio in Latin, meaning birth- so the primary responsibility of the state and of governments is to ensure the birth and rebirth of the people who are entirely dependent upon nature and natural resources for their existence. So, we don't need to so much change national sovereignty as much as enlarge it to what I call integral sovereignty. Integral comes from the Latin meaning parts of the whole, parts of a greater whole. And, in this case, the greater whole is, of course, Mother Earth that supports and sustains us. And one of the ideas that I proposed in that article is that the configuration of sovereign powers within a government between the executive, the legislative, and the judicial be reconfigured so that the judiciary has the power and responsibility to enforce environmental laws to preserve nature as a precondition for state sovereignty. In other words, it isn't a creation of state sovereignty. The judicial recognition and enforcement of laws to protect nature are a precondition for legitimate and lawful state sovereignty. And that opens the courts up to accepting international agreements, that opens the courts up to accepting international principles, general principles of international law, such as the precautionary principle, the "do no harm" principle, the prevention principle, they should all be enforced in domestic jurisdictions, by courts. In fact, the court in Germany just made this watershed decision, saying that the young people in Germany have human rights to a future. So, they are recognizing that, and they did so on the basis of European law as well as their own human rights law, but they also noticed the lack of international binding law in this area. And so, I think there is a real need to develop binding legal treaties and concepts that recognize the earth systems as a whole, as necessary to the preservation of nature and the nation. And in that sense, courts could enforce, if there was greater international recognition of this, then courts could enforce that domestically within their own territorial jurisdictions. So, I see the courts as playing a critical role in helping to preserve the environment, nature, and the nation, but to do so, they have to be seen as recognizing environmental law as a precondition of state sovereignty.
Kimberly White
In "Promoting the Rule of Law in the Global Environment," you discuss how our global commons are "under constant and destabilizing assault" by states whose economies are largely carbon-based and that the legal protection of the global commons is critical. Do you think now is the time to recover the 1988 Maltese proposal of recognizing climate as a Common Heritage of Humankind?
Thomas Boudreau
Well, I love the work that Malta has traditionally done in this area, especially in articulating and recognizing the concept of a common heritage of humanity. I think it's been an invaluable contribution to international law. The challenge facing us now is that we need to enforce that, and we need to go beyond that. The problem with the common heritage of humanity is that it talks about all states working together to protect the globe as a whole, which is absolutely essential. But to do so requires the construction of an international agency or organization, and that could take 10 to 15 years, and I don't think we have time to do that. We need to operationalize these legal constructs immediately and apply them immediately in the courts and in policymaking between states. So, I think we need to absolutely recognize the principles of the common heritage of humanity on a collective level, but at the same time, we need to recognize ancient ideas such as trusteeship, Justinian's idea of public trust, that certain areas of the global ecology have to be preserved in order to ensure the continuation of life and biodiversity on this planet. I call these the core commons. Paulo [Magalhães] calls this the condominium concept of protecting the Earth's systems as a whole. And we now know what the nine or so critical systems are to preserving life on this planet, and many of them are under assault, so they need legal protection. So, I think the challenge is to not just develop the common heritage of humanity, but also to recognize the earth systems as a legal condominium, to recognize them as a public trust, and also to recognize people's right to a future, as the German courts did recently, as a human right. So, those provide a variety of arguments. Courts and policymakers usually accept one argument out of many, and so the hope is if you present them with several alternatives, that they'll run and develop at least one of them.
Kimberly White
Now, you've referenced Paulo with the Common Home of Humanity. Could you share a little bit more about your thoughts on the proposal from CHH?
Thomas Boudreau
Well, I think it's absolutely essential. I think it is wonderful work that Paulo has initiated in Portugal and enlisted support from around the world. I think he's absolutely right that we have to look at the life systems of the Earth as a system as an integrated, complete system. And we are not treating the Earth's biosphere and life systems as one integrated system. And so I think Paulo's work is absolutely essential to our understanding that if we're going to save ourselves, we need to save the basic life support systems that make all of life possible on Earth, or we're not going to make it.
Kimberly White
What do you think the role of law should be in addressing the climate emergency as well as other environmental challenges we face? Do you believe it is necessary to rethink the legal concept of the planet?
Thomas Boudreau
First, I think we have to enlarge our understanding of what law is, especially international law. Before Jeremy Bentham, who did not approve of the American Revolution and was an imperialist, before he defined international law as an agreement between sovereigns, he did not say, for instance, between sovereign states. He meant between kings and emperors. And that's the current definition of international law, and I think it's hopelessly inadequate, especially since the legal revolutions caused by World War II. I think we need to enlarge and expand our understanding of international law and the profound interrelationship between international law and norms and domestic law and norms, especially in the field of the environment. I co-authored a book on this with Dean Sainz-Borgo of the University of Peace in Costa Rica in 2017, where I tried to go back to Blackstone's definition of the law of nations, which included individuals, groups, nations in the state, and disputes under the law of nations could be adjudicated in domestic jurisdictions. If we're going to have an accurate understanding of how the law can operate or should operate in this challenging era, I think we need to combine Blackstone's understanding of international law, or as the law of nations, which was much more permeable, with Jeremy Bentham's understanding as law between sovereigns, which has been interpreted now as simply agreements between sovereign states. So, I think we need a more robust understanding, and that's already happening in practice. They call it transnational law or international constitutionalism. There's a variety of paradigms out there trying to describe the phenomenon how, what I described as the domestic diffusion of legal norms across domestic jurisdictions or the differential diffusion of international norms into domestic jurisdictions, that's already happening. I think we need to do much more of that with environmental law if we're going to have any hope of preserving what remains. As I say, it's an absolute obligation of the courts and as a precondition to legitimate state sovereignty. States cannot claim to be sovereign states unless they are preserving nature and the nation, and most of the developed countries and industrialized countries, I would add, not just simply developed ones, but industrialized countries are not doing that. So there has to be a marked difference, a marked expansion of our understanding of law as it applies in the world today.
Kimberly White
So, essentially we need a global paradigm shift in order to effectively tackle the converging crises of climate change and widespread biodiversity loss. Do you think the proposed Global Pact for the Environment could be the vehicle for such a shift and, in your opinion, what should be its content?
Thomas Boudreau
Very good question because I've worked on this, as you know, since 2018. I think the Global Pact for the Environment emphasizes that everyone has a human right to a healthy environment. And something I noticed in the recent German decision, which is simply a watershed moment, is that they seem to lament, mostly in terms of the absence of any international pact, there was a lack of citing of international treaties, especially concerning human rights because the German court argued in terms of the human rights of young people to a sustainable future. So, I think the Global Pact for the Environment could fill a critical legal need and niche in providing an overarching, legal right that people can argue in their own domestic jurisdictions in order to protect the local and global environment. But as I mentioned before, I think the Pact could also include more explicit language about Justinian's idea of public trust. When you talk about the rule of law, most jurisdictions contain a very likely body of fiduciary duties, responsibilities, norms, and parties, and so I think the language of trust and trusteeship could and should be in the Global Pact for the Environment. You don't know what the courts or what judges will favor, and so I also think that the language of the common heritage of humanity and Paulo's idea of the legal condominium of the earth system as a whole could be in there. And so you provide a variety of arguments that the courts or policymakers could then seize upon, they might only seize upon one in making their own decisions or legal judgments, but I think the Global Pact for the Environment is absolutely essential because it will fill this glaring gap in international law that desperately needs to be filled if we're going to make any progress in preserving the nature or the nations in the very near future.
Kimberly White
Now, we've already discussed the role of law in tackling the climate emergency- what role does civil society play in driving the necessary ambition needed to achieve real, concrete action?
Thomas Boudreau
Well, I think civil society is absolutely essential. And by that, I mean, the rest of us, you know, we're not politicians, we're not in the government, we're not in the judiciary. I think civil society can be the main driver for changing the current trajectory of the environmental disaster that we're on. For instance, in our consumption patterns, we need to live life very locally. Environmental elites still love to get on jets and fly to other countries or continents to conferences, protesting climate change and thereby creating an enormous carbon footprint when you consider the hundreds of delegates, diplomats, NGOs who go and then the media, you're creating an enormous carbon footprint at every one of these conferences and thereby becoming a victim of your own protest. So I think we need to learn to live locally, especially since we have Zoom and Skype and video conferencing. That's why I also emphasize the role of the United Nations. The largest diplomatic community in the world already exists in New York City. There's one in Geneva, there's one of Vienna, in Kenya, in Singapore. We don't need to recreate these conferences. I know the COP parties meet periodically, but what I'm saying is, at the same time, we should be using institutions that already exist and that don't contribute any more carbon footprints, massive carbon footprints to the problem. I also think that civil society can really fundamentally change our consumption patterns. There's no need, especially during the crisis, to eat red meat, especially in the United States. I mean, the idea of having three squares a day that each contain some red meat, I think, is ludicrous.
We need to really cut back on consumption that is literally killing the planet, and so civil society can contribute to that. We need to live very locally. We need to curtail our consumption patterns that are contributing to the death of the planet, and we need to get actively involved in trying to restore our local environment.
Kimberly White
All right, thank you, Thomas. But before we go, is there anything else you'd like to share with our audience?
Thomas Boudreau
Yes, I would like to share the basic idea that we are already in the decisive decade, I think we will decide the fate of the planet or, or the fate of much of the planet, both nature and people on it in this decade, and so we need to take decisive action now and in the next few years, if we're going to avoid catastrophic climate change and destruction. So the challenge is really to all of us to start acting, living locally, and making the changes necessary, individually, collectively, nationally, internationally, to ensure that life survives on this planet.
Kimberly White
All right, and there you have it. Without a sustainable climate, there will be no sustainable development. Transitioning from a carbon-based global economy to a green-based global economy is essential and will provide a myriad of opportunities and new jobs in a variety of sectors. The Earth supports and sustains us, and many of its systems are under assault and need legal protection, and currently, international law is inadequate. We need to develop binding legal treaties and concepts that recognize the earth system as a whole. The Global Pact for the Environment could fill the glaring gap in international law, providing us with an opportunity to preserve nature and nations. That is all for today, and thank you for joining us for this episode of Common Home Conversations. Please subscribe, share, and be sure to tune in on June 30th as we kick off the new season of Common Home Conversations. And visit us at www.ThePlanetaryPress.com for more episodes and the latest news in sustainability, climate change, and the environment.
Interview Transcript
Transcribed by Otter AI
Kimberly White
Hello and welcome to Common Home Conversations. Today we're joined by Eduardo Viola, Political Scientist and Professor of International Relations at the University of Brasilia. Thank you so much for joining us today!
Eduardo Viola
It's a pleasure to be with you.
Kimberly White
So you're a Professor at the University of Brasilia and a Senior Researcher of the Brazilian Council for Research. You're also the Chair of the Brazilian Research Network on the International System in the Anthropocene and Climate Change. Can you tell us more about these experiences and the focus of your current research?
Eduardo Viola
Okay, well, I’ve hada very long career as a Professor of International Relations. My focus of research, not always, but at least in the last 35 years, has been on environmental issues, both in Brazil and internationally, and the Brazilian foreign environmental policy. So I am in international relations with a focus on environment and climate change and energy transition. My research has been, over the years, focused in Brazil and South America but also following and studying directly the trajectory of emissions, climate policies of major players- United States, European Union, Japan, Russia, China, India, and Brazil. And right now, I am a lot involved with specific research about the South American governance of climate and biodiversity in the Pan-Amazonia, not just the Brazilian Amazonia but the whole Amazon, and comparing politics of different countries, particularly Brazil, Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador.
Kimberly White
That's really interesting! So, the Amazon Basin is experiencing threats on multiple fronts. One threat is deforestation. As we have seen in recent years, deforestation for mining, or conversion to agriculture and pasture for beef, has resulted in a staggering amount of biodiversity loss, and the massive fires seen over the last few years have dominated global headlines. At the same time, the melting of the arctic ice sheet and the massive glacial melting in Greenland from global warming is changing the circulation of the Atlantic, reducing the rainfall coming into the Amazon from the ocean. These threats highlight a need for both domestic and international policy solutions. Currently, it appears that economic development outweighs environmental protection at the federal level. Given your expertise, how can Brazil best reconcile its need for economic development with its growing environmental concerns?
Eduardo Viola
So, first of all, we could say that since 2013-14, economic growth has prevailed over environmental protection in the Amazon. But right now, it is extreme because it's actually promotion of deforestation, open and consistent promotion of deforestation. Deforestation right now in the Brazilian Amazon has several players. So we have got landowners, backwater landowners, very small capitalization, let's say, that promote illegal deforestation. We have people that are not landowners, but they occupy the lands and open the forest in order to become owners of the forest; we call these "grileiros" in Portuguese in Brazil. We have illegal gold mining, there is a lot of illegal gold mining in the Amazon, but this is not just in the Brazilian Amazon; it is also in the other upstream countries of the Amazon. Right now, we can say that mercury pollution in the middle and lower Amazon Basin is mostly used in upstream countries, but still, let's say the Brazilian gold miners are constrained a little in relation to using mercury more rationally.
We have other minerals also that are illegally mined in the Amazon Basin. The fifth player that is important in this process of deforestation is the invaders of Indigenous territories. As you probably know, in the case of Brazil, almost 17 percent of the area belongs constitutionally to the Indigenous population. But there are a lot of invasions, sometimes with some cooptations of parts of their Indigenous tribes. And it is very interesting because Brazil has much more strict environmental protection legislation. For example, there is a significant part of logging that is produced illegally in the Brazilian Amazon, but it is moving to the border to Peru, in which the environmental legislation is much weaker.
So those are the major drivers of deforestation in the Amazon. But you need to consider, generally speaking, that the Brazillian Amazon is populated by around 25 million people, most of them living in the cities but in precarious conditions, generally speaking. So there is a major problem of lack of opportunities, which promotes or creates incentives for poor people living in urban areas to go to the forest to deforest illegally, many times working for bigger players that are driving the deforestation. But in all the cases, those are all players that are small compared to the large players in Brazil. Big companies have been very relevant in deforestation in the Amazon until around one decade ago, particularly during the period of dramatic control and reduction of deforestation, 2005 to 2012. During this period, the major companies were banned on the policy of illegally deforesting the Amazon, and they moved because of the questions of prestige or branding and all these kinds of things. And because they have the possibility of deforesting legally in the Cerrado savanna, that is to the south of the Amazon, in which the rate of deforestation in the last 20 years has been much higher than in the rainforest.
Kimberly White
Illegal logging has been a problem for all of the Amazonian countries, right? I think it was in 1998 that Brazil had commissioned a report that found that 80 percent of logging in the Amazon was done illegally.
Eduardo Viola
Yes, yes. Now it is less than that but still significant, but the data are very precarious. They are all estimations. We know how a lot of loggers moved from illegally to legally, particularly at the time during the most consistent anti-deforestation policy. But there are still a lot, and now it's growing. In the last year, the amount of illegal logging compared with the legal has grown.
Kimberly White
We had similar problems here in the United States with the last administration as far as environmental policy goes. Policies were revoked or basically dismantled. Recently, I read that, under Brazil's current administration, the selective logging that was legal has more than doubled since 2019.
Eduardo Viola
Yes, or more than that. Now, we have logging entering new areas. For example, historically, the logging was more in the state of Pará and also in the state of Rondônia. In the last years, there was a movement, expanding the frontier of deforestation and illegal logging to the southeast of the state of Amazon, Amazonia.
Amazonia is very large. It is as large as Alaska; it is 1.2 million square kilometres.
Kimberly White
That's interesting- I had no idea that it was roughly the size of Alaska! So a few minutes ago, you mentioned something regarding Indigenous communities. You mentioned that they were constitutionally protected. Could you elaborate on that and what that means versus something like land demarcation?
Eduardo Viola
Because the constitutional protection has been formally legally very strong, because there are a lot of areas that have been demarcated- the surface that is already under the status of Indigenous territory is very huge. There are some areas that have not been demarcated yet but are eligible for demarcating new Indigenous territory, but this government has said there will not be any more approval of new Indigenous territory. So, we have two problems. One is the areas that were considered to be demarcated and have been postponed. They are in limbo right now- a campaign from the government against new demarcations. The other issue is the issue of what happened in the areas that have already been demarcated. So the problem here is how they are illegally invaded.
Anyway, why did this happen? Because the rule of law is precarious in the Amazon and much more precarious under the current administration.
Kimberly White
Now, we have seen an increase in proposals for green recovery plans as well as more ambitious climate pledges. Can we anticipate similar initiatives from Brazil at the national or subnational level?
Eduardo Viola
The Brazilian national government has been strongly anti-environment. And more recently, they changed the discourse, very recent. Actually, what happened was the Bolsonaro administration became completely isolated. Once Biden took over in the United States, now, you have a President of the United States that is strongly committed to climate change and to give priority to climate change, decarbonisation, and mitigation of climate change.And so, for that reason, there was pressure growing, and there has been a change in the discourse of the Brazilian government. If you essentially compare the discourse of Bolsonaro in the UN General Assembly in September of last year and the discourse of Bolsonaro in the Earth Summit. In September last year, Bolsonaro was saying that Brazil was a country that protected the Amazon more. That there was a very unfair global campaign against Brazil, that the foreign interests were interested in undermining the sovereignty of Brazil in the Amazon. And now Bolsonaro continues lying, he continues saying that it protects a lot of the Amazon, it is a major champion of protection, environmental champion in the world, but he has recognized for the first time that there is a major problem of deforestation in the Amazon. And now they say that we can't control this without foreign money, and this is the new position.
So, more or less, this was the battle between the Bolsonaro administration from one side and the Biden administration, the UK, and European Union in the last two months, let's say. The Brazilian government were saying, "Okay, we will significantly reduce deforestation. You pay before, and we apply according to our dynamic, we apply the money to reduce deforestation." But the US government and the European governments were saying, "No, it's the opposite. We are ready for some financial contribution, though we know that you, Brazil, have been capable of dramatically reducing deforestation between 2005 and 2012 practically without foreign aid. You are a middle-income country, not a low-income country. So you have the capabilities." And Brazil is the only middle-income country that has a high proportion of deforestation in their carbon emissions. This is typical from low-income countries. So northern governments know very well the Brazilian situation, even because this is an open country with free press and a lot of opposition also. So there was a clash.
Kimberly White
No, I agree. And we have seen results-based payments in relation to deforestation work, like for example, Norway and Indonesia. But that took almost a decade for Indonesia to decline its deforestation to prompt those payments from Norway. So it's interesting to see how Brazil presented that.
Eduardo Viola
Yeah, interesting, you are mentioning Norway. The first fund for reducing deforestation from Norway was for Brazil and the second was Indonesia. And for many years, because this fund started around 2010, something like this and was growing. And during many years, this was the contribution, let's say, mostly they were supporting sustainable development, small projects in the Amazon. The fund was managed by the Brazilian Development Bank; it's a very capable bank. So the idea is that if you reduce deforestation, we'll support sustainable development, but the money could not be used directly for operational activities of reducing deforestation. You need to pay with your regular budget, the reduction of deforestation. And if you do this, we'll contribute to promoting projects of sustainable development. And this happened, let's say, since the late 2000s until 2016. But in 2017, Norway found that deforestation had increased significantly in 2015 and 2016, and so Norway reduced the amount of money liberated for the fund because Brazil was not accomplishing the commitment of reducing deforestation. And there was further down another problem because of the dramatic reduction of the budget of the Minister of the Environment in 2017 and '18. Norway allowed that some of the Amazonian funds be used for complementing operational activities of the IBAMA, for example, and the Environmental Protection Agency of Brazil. So, this was new, and this was a little disappointing for Norway. Now I am saying Norway because Germany contributes also, but the contribution of Norway is more than 90 percent. Afterward, the first year of the Bolsonaro administration, the Ministry of Environment tried to use the money of the fund in a way that completely not corresponding with the contractual obligations. And so the Amazonian fund froze. Another thing Indonesia has got a more stable trajectory of deforestation reduction. The process of reduction was slower than in Brazil, but there has not been a significant reversion. Anyway, Indonesia is far away from what was achieved by Brazil in 2012/2011.
Kimberly White
Yeah, we've seen a major decrease in the amount of tree cover loss in Indonesia since the agreement with Norway. I believe the first payment was prompted in 2019 because of a significant drop in primary forest loss. It was very impressive, especially given all of the issues.
The World Resources Institute reported that Indonesia saw a 60 percent drop in tree cover loss and primary forests in the year 2017 compared with the previous year, which was equivalent to a carbon dioxide emissions reduction of burning 199 billion pounds of coal. So it was a significant reduction, and so that's impressive because the country has been having a lot of issues with the expansion of palm oil plantations, pulp plantations, mining, logging, you know, a lot of similar issues that we see in Brazil. So it's interesting to see, and hopefully, we can start to see similar initiatives with Brazil as we head out of this pandemic. And we really need to get more ambitious climate initiatives, so I was interested to see Brazil's announcement at the Climate Leaders Summit. What do you think of the commitments from Bolsonaro on ending illegal deforestation by 2030 and achieving carbon neutrality by 2050? Do you think they will become a reality? And what are some of the challenges to that happening?
Eduardo Viola
The announcement by Bolsonaro in the Earth Summit is the old Brazilian standing commitment in Paris in 2015. What Bolsonaro did is confirm. Because the previous two years have been, "I don't care anymore about this. This is not mine; this was produced by the previous government. I don't agree with that." So, they got recommitted, not a new commitment. What is new is the commitment to zero carbon in 2050, the announcement in the Earth Summit, because, in December, the Brazillian proposal for the Glasgow conference was carbon neutrality in 2060. So this is new, but still, this is something very far away, remote in time, and considering the Bolsonaro administration's credibility is extremely low, internationally and nationally, because there is something very important to understand and let me expand a little bit about this. All the deforesting, all the illicit, in the Amazon, okay? It is the core electoral base of Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro has two, in relation to deforestation and environmental politics, has two bases, that is, around 15-20 percent of the population.
On one side are the people who benefit from deforestation and illegal activities in the Amazon, that is, not just people that do directly the activity, but also people that live in the cities in the Amazon. So this is one part. The other part is the more ideological anti-environmental support of Bolsonaro. So, this is the core base of Bolsonaro. And this is a major reason, independent of the mind of Bolsonaro or the feelings of Bolsonaro, that is why these commitments, the announcements are not related to the rest of the Bolsonaro administration. If Bolsonaro is defeated in the 2022 election, there will be a major shift in the Brazilian climate, the Amazonian environmental policy, and other policies. What Bolsonaro announced could become a reality if there is a new administration starting in 2023. But it's sadly not something that will happen during the rest of the Bolsonaro administration because of the reason I mentioned in relation to their electoral base, core base. But also because the whole life of Bolsonaro has been committed to anti-environmental policy, considering the environmental movement against the Brazilian national interest and agencies, agents of foreign powers.
Kimberly White
Well, hopefully, we start to see some of that initiative after this administration. I know here in the US, we had similar issues. But in January 2021, we had the Biden administration takeover, and we're starting to see a lot more environmental policies and then rejoining the Paris Agreement. So it's kind of I feel like it's revitalized the environmental movement here in the States.
Eduardo Viola
Oh, yeah. Despite Bolsonaro, there has been a significant reinvigoration of, generally speaking, the environmental movement exactly because of the terrible policy of Bolsonaro. So the environmental movement is reinvigorating. And the general receiving society in relation to the environment and a new driver that is very important is now there are a lot of Brazilian corporations that are engaging consistently, with the idea of earth, with environment social governance, that is kind of the mantra of the corporation in the last years. So there are a significant amount of Brazilian corporations engaged in this. So this is a new dynamic because Brazilian corporations have not been committed generally to climate change in the past, and now, a significant part of them are committed. So this, you have this, and we also have a lot of governors. So some national governments, a lot of state governors, both in the Amazon and outside the Amazon, that are committed to climate policies that are better, at least, than the federal government.
Kimberly White
Now, as an expert in international relations, what do you see as the primary challenges of reaching an internationally binding treaty such as the proposed Global Pact for the Environment?
Eduardo Viola
Well, this kind of treaty is very, very ambitious. I think the times are coming in which it will become possible. Okay, in which forces why? Because we clearly have a realization in most of the global elites and a significant amount of the mass public, particularly in the Western world, but also outside the Western world, that is climate change, biodiversity erosion, ocean acidification, and plastic pollution, issues like this are becoming major risks and threats to humanity. We are living through a significant change in mindset. Because of this, we are creating the basis for a very ambitious treaty like you mentioned.
Kimberly White
Thank you, Eduardo. Before we go, is there anything else you'd like to share with our audience?
Eduardo Viola
We are right now in 2021 in a moment that is, from an objective point of view, much more difficult than at the time of the Paris Agreement five years ago because of the warming of the world, of the planet has accelerated in the last years, and because the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events have also accelerated. But from a kind of awareness and consciousness of humanity, we have a better situation. And I would say that this better situation is because of three drivers. First, the COVID pandemic, that has produced an increased awareness about what is called the intangible risks or threats to humanity, like pandemics, for example. This is something that this tangible, has been for decades for the scientific community, but it's intangible for most people. And it's similar to climate change. So, that climate change is becoming more tangible for sure, because of the extreme weather events, not because of the 1.2 degrees warming of the earth, because this is very abstract by 90 percent of the people. So, there is a connection. So we have a new situation that needed still to be consolidated, but I think it likely will be consolidated in which the world was remote before the pandemic or less tangible has become strongly tangible. And so, this is a major, major factor of transformation, very positive. The second one is the transformation in most of the global corporations in the western democracies in the last years. This is reflected a lot in what had happened in the last meetings of the World Economic Forum. So I say the global corporations, most not all, certainly not the oil, coal, and gas corporations, but most corporations have incorporated the climate risk in their planning process and in their investing decisions. And also, the global investing funds have incorporated these criteria. So this is something very powerful in terms of future allocation of capital. And this is something that is valid for the United States, Canada, the UK, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia. Okay.
The western world, in the political meaning, let's say, but it's also something that is targeted to come in countries like China, for example. That still is far away compared with western corporations. Okay. But this is a major, major driver, a very positive factor that was not present in 2015 or just at the beginning. And the third driving force is the change of administration in the United States. I say major change because it's not just coming back to the Obama administration, that it would be a relatively poor transformation, something very deep. It's a major realization of climate change by the Biden administration. At this point, the Biden personality is key, of course, because he was in the Obama administration and was much less ambitious at that time. So I think this is very important.
Kimberly White
All right, and there you have it. While our global community faces a myriad of environmental, social, political, and economic challenges, we now have the realization that issues such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and ocean acidification pose a major threat to humanity. The change in mindset that we are witnessing creates the basis for a new and ambitious treaty like the Global Pact for the Environment. That is all for today, and thank you for joining us for this episode of Common Home Conversations. Please subscribe, share, and be sure to tune in on June 2nd to continue the conversation with our special guest, Thomas Boudreau, Professor of Conflict Analysis and Dispute Resolution at Salisbury University. And visit us at www.ThePlanetaryPress.com for more episodes and the latest news in sustainability, climate change, and the environment.
Interview Transcript
Transcribed by Otter AI
Kimberly White
Hello and welcome to Common Home Conversations. Today we're joined by Maja Groff, an international lawyer based in The Hague and Convenor of the Climate Governance Commission! Thank you so much for joining us today!
Maja Groff
Pleasure to be here with you, Kimberly.
Kimberly White
So you previously worked with the Permanent Bureau of The Hague Conference on Private International Law. Can you tell us more about this experience?
Maja Groff
Yes, absolutely. It was really a great pleasure to serve as an international civil servant at The Hague Conference on Private International Law, serving the international community, the member states of the organization, which now number over 80 states. And I worked there for over a decade, working on a whole range of existing, binding multilateral treaties across very diverse areas of law, as well as on the development of new international treaties and legal norms. And really, as we see globalization intensifying across a whole range of areas, the demands on international law really are accelerating. So just as an example, of some of the areas I worked on at The Hague Conference, I worked on very widely ratified vital children's conventions, a convention on the protection of adults with disabilities in cross border circumstances, I worked on a pioneering international Hague network of judges, as well as new potential treaties in areas such as the cross border protection of tourists, the recognition and enforcement of foreign civil protection orders in cases of domestic violence, and facilitation of access to foreign law. So it was a really wonderful experience across so many different diverse areas of international law, international human rights law, which exposed me to diverse legal systems around the world, diplomatic processes, and really gave me a sense of the great potential that modern international law can have, in terms of really addressing global issues, very concrete access to justice issues for individuals, for other actors. So it was a really wonderful background for the current work I'm doing at the moment.
And just another note that The Hague Conference on Private International Law happens to be one of the oldest intergovernmental organizations in the world, dating from 1893. So it's been also a really brilliant vantage point to see sort of the origins of international law dating from the late 1800s to the first Hague peace conferences in 1899 and 1907, which set the stage for some of the international peace and security law we currently have, and for the League of Nations, and the United Nations. So it's been just a wonderful, brilliant vantage point, as well as being around modern international criminal law institutions, the Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon; I've worked at both of them. And to see how international law can progress and make quite dramatic leaps forward with sets of dedicated professionals, dedicated international civil society networks, it's very promising for us and the international community.
Kimberly White
That is quite impressive! And it sounds like you had such wonderful experiences with the different aspects of that. And now you're working with the Global Challenges Foundation. So, the Global Challenges Foundation has identified three global risks to humanity. Can you please tell us what these risks are?
Maja Groff
Yeah, I think the Global Challenges Foundation has been good at raising awareness, public awareness, policymaker awareness about the range of global threats, global risks that confront us. And at the moment, there seems to be, from the Global Challenges Foundation, really a focus on climate change, large-scale environmental degradation, and weapons of mass destruction, which are key and thought to be interconnected challenges. So, of course, climate and large-scale environmental destruction is a newer threat versus the arms threat. And as we all know, they are an accelerating threat, these ecological and climate threats, and also dependent on understanding and policymaking based on very complex and evolving science, so quite a challenging area for international policymakers.
The weapons of mass destruction issue, of course, with the nuclear age after World War II, has come into focus for the international community, and is less well known, I think, by the general public at the moment, because of some very quite effective arms treaties, bilateral in particular between the US and the former USSR, after the Cold War to regulate bilaterally some of those very dangerous arms races. But now, commentators and experts are also saying that we are living in a high-risk world in the case of weapons of mass destruction, across a whole range of areas, not just nuclear weapons, there's also the threat of new lethal autonomous weapons, the use of AI, we know all about cybersecurity threats. We also know of bio weapons related to different technologies in the development and engineering of viruses, for example. Chemical weapons are still very important and remain a threat. And so on. So I think it's excellent that the Global Challenges Foundation is trying to raise awareness of these interconnected threats, relating to other global threats and try to think carefully and think together, also in an innovative way about how we improve our collective decision making to tackle these threats and indeed, part of the vision of the founder Laszlo Szombatfalvy is to find new international decision making and global governance mechanisms that will, in a consistent, reliable way, manage these risks that we confront.
Kimberly White
Additionally, the Global Challenges Foundation highlighted the three underlying forces of these risks. Can you share more about these?
Maja Groff
So yes, the Global Challenges Foundation has highlighted these three contributing forces- extreme poverty, population growth, and political violence. So I think these are quite interesting, sort of contributing factors that are very socially based throughout our societies. So, for example, we see different polarized movements, unfortunately, across a range of countries and sort of internationalized polarized movements that add to our global risk. Population growth is also highly relevant to our ecological crises and threats and how we accelerate our responses to the ecological threats so that we don't all become over-consumers, as has happened in the developed world without transitioning to economies where we can have really deep circularity, so we really reuse and recycle and make sure that we're not just depleting global natural resources.
Kimberly White
So international environmental law seems unable to deal with the shared global problems we are facing today. It is state-centered and doesn't necessarily cater to our shared responsibilities toward the global environment, even though the well-being of states depends on the well-being of our global environment. Why is current environmental law unable to achieve the deep structural reforms necessary to address shared global issues such as climate change?
Maja Groff
Yes, it's a very good question, Kimberly. I think it's one that we have to keep asking ourselves. As an international lawyer, I think it's vital to keep interrogating and asking how international law can better serve us as a global community, and indeed, national communities that are so deeply affected by climate change, by ecological issues that really are global and know no borders.
So I would say that really the general frailties across broader international law are relevant to the field of environmental law. And these limitations are well known, but also I would say, especially in the legal professional community and in policy communities, the sort of deficits in international law kind of structurally are still largely accepted. So, for example, we still have these fragmented, cumbersome international treaty-making processes with no more streamlined international legislative capacity with legitimacy to ensure we have adequate and updated international norms that, in some cases, should be binding. You know, for example, in the EU, there is legislation with direct effect. At the moment in international law, of course, each state has to join each individual treaty independently. And it takes such a lot of time, not only to negotiate the instruments but then also to have wider acceptance in the international community by ratification or accession can take years and years. And then, of course, we don't have consistent judicial oversight on key international legal norms. There are just some key structural deficits, I would say, in the international legal system. We have some newer, more modern legal institutions and legal regimes that show again some progress in international law and show the potential of international law that could be better applied in the environmental sphere. For example, we've seen these ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals in The Hague for the former Yugoslavia and other places. We have the International Criminal Court, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The dispute settlement mechanisms of the WTO and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea also are like more modernized dispute resolution mechanisms between states that are a bit more advanced than are general international law mechanisms that really date to 1945 and the UN Charter.
So I would say that there should be a lot more attention to monitoring enforcement and adjudication in the international environmental law area. As is the case, sort of, for general international lots due for an upgrade, but it is excellent to see all the various civil society groups and new coalitions that are advocating for new legal norms, new legal paradigms, which I think is very promising, and might lead to more positive changes in the field of environmental law.
Kimberly White
Absolutely. In the past few years, there have been quite a few challenges to climate action, including climate denial. Especially coming out of the United States at the federal level. However, I think one good thing that has come from that is how it has brought together civil society. We have seen people really come together and demand that this threat we are all facing be addressed and it's becoming a bigger part of the conversation.
Maja Groff
Yes, absolutely. I couldn't agree more. It's very promising.
Kimberly White
So you're the Convenor of the Climate Governance Commission, an initiative of the Global Challenges Foundation. Can you tell us what climate governance is?
Maja Groff
Yes, absolutely. So the Climate Governance Commission came out of some various workstreams, we could say, from an international prize, the Global Challenges Foundation awarded in 2018. And colleagues and I participated in that, and we were awarded one of the prizes. And really, I worked with an international economist and an international ecologist, and we were trying to propose a new, more comprehensive model for enhanced global governance. And we have a book published in 2020 by Cambridge University Press on this topic. And by the way, it's available open access on the Cambridge University Press website; we really wanted to facilitate a global dialogue on this topic. So as in other areas of international law and governance, there is a governance gap, we would say, in the climate governance area, as in other areas, even though the success of the Paris Agreement in 2015 is real, it's a remarkable achievement. Yet to date, it still has not managed to really get the world predictably and reliably on track to manage the global climate system, related ecological systems in a more permanent, stable, reliable manner. So in simple terms, if we talk about governance, it means the institutions or processes we collectively put in place to solve our shared problems or other issues which need to be effectively managed. So climate governance, in simple terms, is the effective management of the global climate system. So the Commission is taking this global governance perspective, trying to look from the International down to the national, in general, rather than still the predisposition to look from the national up to the international to think about what global governance innovations, changes can we recommend in the near-term, medium-term, longer-term, to really better manage the global climate and related planetary boundaries, the earth system in a stable, predictable, reliable way that is fair and legitimate.
Kimberly White
Now, you mentioned the Paris Agreement. And we've seen a few landmark treaties in the past 20 years or so. Please explain the key differences between the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement and how the proposed Global Pact for the Environment can build on these two landmark agreements?
Maja Groff
Yeah, so as I mentioned, the international community should really be proud of the Paris Agreement and the achievement of its adoption in 2015, and it was a giant step forward in establishing an operational regime that was, or is now essentially universal, also with the US rejoining the Paris Agreement again. And this achievement was after some 20 years of failed attempts to manage the global environment through the Kyoto Protocol and its paradigm and other related efforts. And so the Paris Agreement represents really a shift in diplomacy, a shift in perspectives that adopted a bottom-up structure for emissions targets with the now famous Nationally Determined Contributions but also balanced in the Paris agreement by top-down provisions for strong global emission goals and accountability provisions through reporting and review, for example. And it also shifted the paradigm of differentiation between developed and developing countries, which was a key stumbling block in the Kyoto Protocol. And the Paris Agreement seeks to continue to assure developing countries that their priorities for growth and development are fully respected, but putting in place a much more supple means of differentiating between developed and developing countries than in the 1990s, and sort of the precursor paradigm. So the Paris Agreement is this model of a race to the top, ratcheting up commitments. Only recently, with the US rejoining, we see some of that new energy and momentum, again, building within the Paris Agreement structure. So that is hopeful; we'll have to see what happens at Glasgow, but also in the coming years.
Now, you mentioned also the Global Pact for the Environment. And as far as I know, I haven't read the full draft text of the Pact for the Environment, but according to the materials communicated by colleagues, and I'd like to study and dialogue with the drafters on the text of the Pact, but it's meant to be a new synthesis document of key environmental principles, some of which, some of the principles, which have been around for many years since Stockholm in 1972, or Rio in ‘92, but haven't been enshrined in international law. So it's sort of a gap-filling key principles treaty, as I understand the proposal, that enshrined for example, the right to a sound environment and also a duty of care to the environment—so trying to shift humanity's understanding of its relationship to the environment in sort of a profound way. And also, then, in trying to keep substantive principles like the duty to prevent and repair environmental damage, the precautionary principle, integration of sustainable development objectives, and then procedural principles like access to environmental justice, and a number of other features. So I think, absolutely, this would be sort of a very interesting, paradigm shifting treaty that would help to consolidate modern international environmental law. However, it still does, as far as I understand, follow a sort of traditional paradigm of international law and including the sort of control mechanisms or committee function as envisioned currently. But I'd have to discuss more with the drafters to fully see what they have in mind and also where this proposal might be going in terms of further developments.
Kimberly White
Now, going back to Kyoto versus Paris, would you say that Kyoto had stronger penalties for inaction or failure to meet the targets than the Paris Agreement?
Maja Groff
Yes. So the Kyoto Protocol is a little bit infamous at being sort of a top-down sort of heavy penalty-related kind of a convention or instrument. And I guess also in circles that have been heavily engaged in the Paris Agreement, that sort of now, something that is sort of a lesson in what not to do in this area. However, it's also a matter of timing and political will, as you were saying earlier. Public opinion has shifted a lot on the issue of climate change and ecological risk, so an instrument like the Kyoto Protocol, perhaps the time hadn't come for such an instrument. There are other flaws, of course, in the protocol. But one could envision shifts back to different approaches to a climate governance regime building out from the Paris Agreement. For example, I'm not saying that the time is necessarily right for that now, or we don't know when. But again, back to my point about the capacities of international law, I think we have a much wider toolkit to use different mechanisms of international law for enforcement and adjudication and monitoring, etc. That should really be considered in the field of climate governance and ecological governance. However, again, at the moment, all actors are trying to put all of their energy into making the Paris Agreement work, to really roll up their sleeves, to work with non-state actors to work with the cities at the city level, to try to accelerate the really badly and urgently needed exponential climate action. So what we'll see in the coming years, what dent that makes in achieving the Paris Agreement goals, and indeed, in trying to bend the emissions trajectory towards a limitation where we could achieve the 1.5 degrees Celsius global temperature limitation. That's a huge challenge. But there are more and more actors coming on board. And again, not just states that are vigorously working to achieve this.
Kimberly White
Absolutely. And I think the COVID-19 pandemic, while it has been extremely devastating, gives us the unique opportunity to rethink our targets and how we're addressing these issues and gives us a chance to shift toward a more climate positive, nature positive path forward.
Maja Groff
Absolutely.
Kimberly White
What do you see as some of the main challenges of reaching international treaties such as the Paris Agreement, Kyoto, or the proposed Global Pact?
Maja Groff
Yeah, I think there are a whole range of challenges. And maybe I'll just name a few because I think these processes are so complicated. And the backdrop, the geopolitical backdrop, for example, can make a huge difference at any one particular time. To have such achievements like breakthrough treaties, breakthrough progress, the stars sort of have to align in terms of what administrations are in place in various major countries; for example, like the US that has traditionally been a real leadership country in a range of areas. So there are a whole lot of background factors that I think are important for successful treaty negotiation, successful adoption of new significant international norms. However, apart from those sorts of dynamics, you know, national governments, geopolitics, I think legal experts, international civil society can do a lot to develop really sound proposals that have policy and legal proposals of excellence that are well thought through, that are developed as a result of consultation with a broad array of stakeholders, including governmental actors, civil society actors, progressive business actors. So I think if proposals are very well developed and thought through, they can have a natural kind of force, sort of like a gravitational pull. Because the international community and most civil servants from countries around the world that I've worked with, they're looking for solutions to global problems. So if well thought through proposals can be put on the table for policymakers, a critical mass of states may get on board, despite major countries having differing views, for example. So I think that's a really powerful lever for change, also, of course, is what we've touched upon a few times this notion of transnational civil society, and the power of a very well organized, vibrant, robust, energetic international campaigns of civil society groups that are working in key issue areas. And as I mentioned, it's really heartening to see a number of those sorts of coalitions getting started and gathering momentum in the ecological and climate governance area. So I think those sorts of well-designed campaigns which should be strategic, which should have key messages to also engage the public across the world, and the public can be extremely influential in key states, for example, in the US, for the foundation of the International Criminal Court, public opinion was very influential, in also trying to raise awareness and legal norms about genocide. US public opinion has been very, very helpful to push norms forward. So I think there’s a lot that civil society merged with expert platforms can accomplish and offer to the international community. And the vast majority of states, I think, and civil servants working in international organizations are looking for good, sound solutions to help manage our global risks.
Kimberly White
Definitely, and I think all these new programs and campaigns by civil society have definitely helped light a fire that we hadn't seen previously. So it's really exciting to see. I know, I always enjoy seeing the different discourse that results from these, and they really can help move the needle. And I think that's so important to note that I sometimes think with the climate crisis, people feel like, well, I'm just one person, what can I do? And it's so important to realize that your voice does count, it does matter, and you do have the power to make a difference.
Maja Groff
Absolutely, definitely.
Kimberly White
The Common Home of Humanity has proposed recognizing the earth system as an intangible, global common without borders. In your opinion, how would this help us better address existential threats such as the climate emergency?
Maja Groff
Yes, thank you for raising this really important proposal and having this podcast series also dialoguing on these proposals, which I think is really fascinating. I think the proposal to recognize the earth system as an intangible global commons is paradigm-shifting, in even a deeper way than the Global Pact or others, even though I, of course, think the Global Pact is very worthwhile. But this sort of new legal paradigm to have a global commons with the earth system at the center, I think should be really seriously considered and further developed and workshopped. I think a key point that Paulo Magalhaes has raised is that if you can't label or categorize something like the earth system or the climate system, it's very difficult to manage. And I think that's a valid point. And also, as Paulo has explained, the condominium sort of approach to the earth system where there'll be a global commons, which would be the earth system. And the safe operating space for humanity to keep the natural systems in balance so that we have a safe operating space for humanity to thrive. Having that as a common intangible, a global commons, and then still having clearly this notion of sovereignty, the nation-state, which is, of course, still a very, very important administrative sort of unit in the international system, I think it's really a brilliant and interesting suggestion. Also, such an approach would allow the international community to really focus together on managing this common facility that is so vital, vital to our thriving, vital to our survival, interconnected with all sorts of other global risks and security threats,as you had mentioned. So I think geopolitically, in terms of the maturation of the international community and the international system, it would be a wonderful collective project for the international community to take on. Of course, earth system science, planetary sciences, climate science, and scientific proposals about the planetary boundaries, etc. This is still a very evolving complex area of science, and that in itself is a challenge. But in that area, also it's just extraordinary to see all the talented scientists working in this area, trying to put the pieces together so that we can really think concretely about planetary boundaries or the earth system, we can think on a planetary level as we indeed, absolutely need to do. So as we've seen, for example, the work of the IPCC, having this global scientific perspective is just absolutely vital for the international community at this time. So that's another very exciting part of this work is connecting, connecting to the most recent, international planetary science, which is so important.
Kimberly White
Absolutely, and it's exciting to see more research come out of earth system science. I know I always enjoy reading new work from the Common Home of Humanity and contributors such as Will Steffen. So it's definitely a great time for this. And I think it's such an important effort as we move forward to address these interconnected threats we face. Before we go, do you have anything else that you'd like to share with our audience?
Maja Groff
I only hope that the global public becomes more and more involved, that we think about our common ideas or our common conceptions, that we really engage with proposals, such as those of the Common Home of Humanity. And I hope they become much more widespread publicly, because I think, as you said, a lot of individuals feel very alone. They don't know what they can do. They feel a lot of climate anxiety. But I think engaging with such proposals, working on them, dialoguing about them with policymakers is very, very helpful, very healthy and will help to shift, really shift our thinking towards new solutions and new approaches.
Kimberly White
Thank you so much for joining us, Maja.
Maja Groff
Thank you, Kimberly.
Kimberly White
All right, and there you have it. Although the Paris Agreement was a remarkable achievement, it has not yet been able to get the world on track to manage the earth's climate and ecological systems effectively. Recognizing the earth system as an intangible, global common without borders would be paradigm-shifting, providing the international community with the opportunity to focus on managing the global commons vital to our survival. That is all for today, and thank you for joining us for this episode of Common Home Conversations Beyond UN75. Please subscribe, share, and be sure to tune in on May 19th to continue the conversation with our special guest, Eduardo Viola, Political Scientist and Professor of International Relations at the University of Brasilia. And visit us at www.ThePlanetaryPress.com for more episodes and the latest news in sustainability, climate change, and the environment.
Interview Transcript
Transcribed by Otter AI
Kimberly White
Hello and welcome to Common Home Conversations. Today we are joined by Frank Biermann, Professor of Global Sustainability Governance at Utrecht University, Director of the ERC GlobalGoals Project, Founder of the Earth System Governance Project, and Editor of the Earth System Governance journal. Thank you for joining us today, Frank!
Frank Biermann
Thank you so much, Kimberly. It's a pleasure being with you.
Kimberly White
You're a professor of global sustainability governance at Utrecht University and founder of the Earth System Governance Project. Can you tell us more about these experiences and the focus of your current research?
Frank Biermann
Oh, thank you so much. But there are two different functions. Let me just explain both of them. The one is, of course, my normal professional function. I'm a professor of global sustainability governance at Utrecht University. That means essentially, I am a political scientist, I also have some background in international law. But essentially, my research, my interest in teaching also is political science, international relations. So I'm driven by trying to better understand how we can create institutions that can deal better with problems of global environmental change. We know that the earth system, the entire Earth system is today, transformed by human actions, climate change is accelerating, and we have to struggle very hard to keep global warming under 1.5 degrees.
Species extinction, the worldwide spread of plastics in the oceans, ozone depletion, all these kinds of problems are essentially global problems. That means countries have to work together, governments need to agree on joint goals, they have to get together to share resources to share knowledge, governments have to adjust the policies, and we all have to change to adjust to these kinds of challenges. And for that, we need international institutions. We need international governance. And so far, these institutions are not effective; they're not really able to cope with these challenges. So, therefore, we need better institutions. We need better global governance. And this is what keeps me busy for the last 30 years, this is my field of research, this is the field of my teaching, and this is also where I'm personally extremely passionate about. I should also add that it's not necessarily just a picture of a win-win. It's not that we just need to have a better institutional design, and then everything will be resolved, and everything will be better. Instead, I'm very much concerned about conflicts of power and global inequalities and all kinds of conflicts that we have that countries are in a variety of relationships of inequality, dependence, post-colonialism, etc. So this is also part of the story of international institutions that we have to take into account, and we want to understand how we can try together to achieve an equitable and more sustainable future for all within the natural basis and the natural conditions of our planet. So this is my research, this is what I’m working on, and this is the key area of my Chair as a Professor of Global Sustainability Governance at Utrecht University as part of the Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development at Utrecht.
And Earth System Governance is a slightly different story. It is not only about research, certainly not about my own research; it is about the network. It's about global networking to jointly study these questions that I have just laid out. And here we are a bit building on models that have been developed in the natural sciences in terms of global research collaborations. And the earlier years, like in the 19th century, social science was very much an individual activity. People were just there, they read a book, and you write a book, and you read a couple of books, and then you continue the progress of scientific knowledge in the social sciences. And this is essentially the model of the 19th century and the 20th century in the social sciences. And I believe that we cannot continue like this any longer. So we have to work much more together. And the natural sciences have done this already since the 1950s. Working together in large communities and large networks, where you exchange data, you exchange scientific insights work according to large science plans for sometimes five or ten years, where hundreds of scientists work together and try to jointly really better understand the reality of what's going on. And this is a model that natural scientists have done for quite some time. I believe it's also very much important for the social sciences. And this is essentially what the Earth System Governance Project is about. It's a global network. It's a network where hundreds of scientists are coming together and jointly discuss findings, research methods, questions, and theories about this big challenge of governance and the transformation of the entire earth system.
So we're not talking about air pollution; we talk about the transformation of the entire Earth system. We're not talking about the protection of individual species in our neighborhoods; we talk about the sixth mass extinction of species that are kind of being extinct on a huge scale, we're talking about sea-level rise, we are talking about land degradation, we are talking about ozone depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer. Half of the habitable land on earth we are using for agriculture, and we have totally transformed the planet. And I think this is a situation that requires a new perspective. And this is not the perspective of environmental policy. This is the perspective where we have to discuss these governance problems, the governance challenges, of the entire planetary system. And this is why we have developed this concept of earth system governance, which means institutions that are dealing with social-ecological systems at planetary scale.
Kimberly White
During your time working in this field, have you seen any shift in environmental governance policy towards a more earth system-based approach?
Frank Biermann
Not on a systemic level. I think some of the key issues are not sufficiently addressed in the political space. Climate change certainly is. I mean, climate change certainly is a big issue also because of the youth movement that is associated with it, and I think it's a key issue in many countries. Not in all countries, but like in the Netherlands, where I'm based, it's certainly one of the key issues in political discourse. So there, I certainly see a change. I mean, when I started my career, it was a marginal issue; it was a fringe issue. And we went to international conferences on international relations; for example, the environmental committee was extremely small. And now the International Studies Association is one of the big institutions in science, in the study of international relations, Now, the environmental studies section there is one of the largest. This change is certainly there. I missed the change on a variety of other issues like food, for example. I am missing a strong focus on some of these big, big issues that we have to discuss, like the provision of food in times of climate change, and also many of the responses to climate change, where I believe that the provision of food is one of the big challenges in the future. And here, I'm missing strong political attention to these kinds of issues. And this is one of the issues that I'm working on to bring this forward. But generally, there is an increase of attention in the public debate and the political debate, but surely not enough. I mean, that's surely not enough. I think this sense of crisis is not very strong yet, in the political system, and ultimately, societies. I mean, if you look at the public debates, like the political needs, for example, climate change of decarbonizing our societies within one generation, it's a huge challenge, and you don't see it efficiently reflected in daily politics. So, therefore, it's better than in the 1990s. Change is there, but it's surely not sufficient yet, compared to the challenges that are ahead of us in this generation.
Kimberly White
Absolutely, I know, with the recent NDC synthesis report, and we talked about this in a previous interview with Princess Esmeralda of Belgium. With the current NDC's, we're still not at that level of ambition needed to meet the Paris Agreement goals. And, that's problematic, but thankfully, I would say, one thing that has come out of the pandemic has been the discussions about the need for green recovery. So I'm hopeful that we'll start to see some real concrete action moving forward.
Frank Biermann
I fully agree. I mean, I fully agree. This kind of public knowledge that what has been committed to by governments so far, and also other societal actors, is absolutely not sufficient to achieve the decarbonization challenges that are ahead of us. And they have to be implemented; it's very clear that we have to drastically reduce our emissions within one generation. And we have to start now, and current policies are not sufficient. So I think this is one of the big, big challenges. As I said, corona is an important issue for one or two years now, but the big challenge ahead is climate change, but also some other issues of earth system transformation. So we are really observing massive changes in the planetary systems, and we have to take urgent action, and this is not happening so far. And this is important, for example, in climate change, I mean, there are debates driven by some people to use alternatives, which could be like geoengineering, or some people say that politically, we are not achieving the decarbonization challenges and targets, so, therefore, we should have totally different approaches, which I'm not supporting, to be very clear. These alternative futures of geoengineered climate, are well on the table and are very much discussed, and tomorrow we will have a new report by the National Academy of Science of the United States, which is discussing geoengineering, we have to see what the outcome of this report will be. But the decision that the current generation is taking is fundamental, and also make it very clear, I am very much objecting to the one frame, which is what I call the one humankind frame that it's all one humankind. I'm also tempted sometimes to speak on this more than I probably did already in the last couple of minutes about we the humans, we the people. And it's not like that, I mean, there are people who are consuming much above the global average, and these are the rich countries in the north. And other people have been much less responsible for the challenge, for the problems that we have now and are probably ought to be much more vulnerable to the impact of earth system transformation. So it's a huge inequality challenge also that we are facing. And this has to be made very, very clear in all of these debates about global sustainability, climate change, or earth system governance, etc.
Kimberly White
Absolutely. And you know, here in the United States, we're the world's second-largest emitter, and we only have a fraction of the population of countries such as China and India. I think many of the G20 countries have this issue where we have consumed so much, and we always keep consuming. That ‘bigger is better’ mindset is what has gotten us into this trouble that we're in, and the countries such as the island communities who have such a minimal footprint are the ones on the frontlines, and they're the ones facing the consequences for our consumption patterns.
Frank Biermann
I fully agree. This is absolutely the case. And this is very, very important to always keep it in mind especially in those communities that are more in favor of one humankind discourse, as I said. This is the discourse of the Anthropocene, for example, which is a new term that has been proposed to describe the current epoch in planetary history as important is driven by the human species. That's where the name Anthropocene comes from. And normally, I also use the word, many of my publications have the word Anthropocene in the title. I think that is also a very important defining characteristic, but it is hiding or tends to hide inequalities. And, this is very important to bring this all the time onto the table, and also discuss it in all kinds of policy proposals, which includes also, and we can come back to this maybe later, my good friends from the common heritage of humankind idea that I'm very much supportive of but also here, it is very much important to look at global inequalities and to emphasize that the responsibility for the past causation of earth system transformations, particularly climate change, is very much with rich countries in the north, and also the responsibility to address these challenges.
And finally, also, it's very much important in the governance structures that we are about to develop in dealing with earth system transformation to Earth System Governance, to develop this in a way that gives large voting power in whatever ways it is or takes into account global inequalities and also empowers the vulnerable people in all kinds of decision making that we're setting up. And this is very, very important. You see it in the role of science, for example, I mean, to the extent that we give a stronger role for scientists in decision making, implicitly or explicitly, then we have to acknowledge that the scientific community is essentially based in the global laws. So, therefore, giving more power to scientists, we have to understand to what extent they are affected or influenced by being citizens of OECD countries. Same as for civil society with a good colleague of mine, Carole-Anne Sénit, we're working on a book in which we are discussing imbalances in global civil society. I mean, those people who are in New York at the United Nations and are speaking there for global civil society, we try to understand to what extent are they really representing a global civil society and to what extent are they just representing what is seen as global civil society in the rich countries in the north. And it has to do a lot with money; it has to do with funding; it has to do with possibilities; it has to do with the discourse of power. And we did lots of interviews and studies of the procedures of how civil society works in New York. And it is very much so that the interest and the organization that is under one way or the other, based in or paid by, funded by the rich countries, are those that are most powerful. So, inequality is very much a problem also for Earth System Governance, and we have to address it very much in our research.
Kimberly White
In a previous interview with Ana Barreira of IIDMA, she relates that we have a well-developed international legal framework for the protection of the environment, but it's framed in a very siloed manner. There is no interconnectivity. How can an earth system approach better reconcile environmental law with growing social, environmental, and economic concerns?
Frank Biermann
Well, this is a very, very good question. Certainly, the assessment is absolutely true. I mean, the governance systems that we have are extremely fragmented; at the country level, in different ministries, where everybody does their own thing, but also at the global level, international organizations, UN agencies, etc. So there's not sufficient integration and coherence, and alignment of international and national institutions when it comes to global sustainability and earth system governance. The problem is absolutely well taken. The question is what to do about it. So at the national level, this is a long-standing debate on how you can try to improve national coherence when it comes to sustainability. It's an open question, but I think, therefore, we definitely need to have a stronger alliance of institutions at the national level. My work was very much at the global level, trying to understand how we can improve the integration and collaboration of international organizations to jointly achieve sustainability and to work together in a more meaningful way. In 2012, a group of us 33 authors published an article, which was called Navigating the Anthropocene: Strengthening Earth System Governance, in which we together proposed a United Nations Council on the sustainable development in the sense of, set up an integrative body in the UN system at the highest level, that would be able and empowered and mandated to integrate the policies and programs of different institutions and organizations in the UN system. This didn't go through. What we got instead is the high-level political forum, which is high-level welded terms in the terminology, but it's not a council; it is more like a forum. And to the extent how it is working, we have to see it, I mean, it was established some years ago, so it's not maybe too early to say whether it's success or failure in any way, but I have my doubts, it's certainly not what we had proposed originally. The alternative, what the United Nations also had agreed upon in 2015, is the Sustainable Development Goals. These are 17 large goals that the UN has come up with after a couple of years of negotiations. They have 169 targets, and they are supposed to steer national policies and international policies into the direction of sustainable development in a variety of areas in food and energy and biodiversity, climate as well as governance, and many other areas. And here, this is the idea is to break down silos. One of the underlying ideas is to break down the silos and to achieve integration of the social, environmental, and economic concerns. Whether it works is a big question, we surely need a stronger framework to really break down the silence in a more meaningful way. And what is very important, also, it's not only just integration and collaboration as such, I think it's very much about the economic organizations, which is the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and a couple of others, that are largely outside the standard sustainability policies of the United Nations. And I think here, this neoliberal capitalist approach that these organizations are still taking is one that is harmful for the earth system policies that are needed. And I think here it is very important to bring in more sustainability into these powerful economic organizations and to work towards a much more integrative approach. So I think there are strong arguments in favor of changing the policies in these organizations, meaning to bring much more concerns of social concerns and ecological concerns into these organizations. So that I think is very much important. And this is what the Earth System Governance Project is studying, among many other things. So we are really concerned about how all these organizations are collaborating and how key concerns of Earth System Governance can be best advanced and protected. For example, food I mentioned already, that the provision of food we have 800 million people who have not enough food today. And the pressures on land and on food are increasing tremendously, especially from the climate policy space, where we have an increasing pressure to increase the use of biofuels. And maybe also in the next 10 or 20 years, an increasing pressure to use land for the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which is one thing that is openly discussed as part of the IPCC modeling approaches many of them. And I think here; it's very important to develop strong global policies that are dealing with the provision of food and the protection of food security for everybody, especially in the most vulnerable countries and their regions. But overall, I think the integration, I'm very much in agreement with the previous speaker that was on there, and I very much believe that it's important to strengthen the integration of global governance in these domains.
Kimberly White
Absolutely, and, going back to the food aspect, it's really important; I think that we recognize that the solutions to our food security problems are not going to be one size fits all. They will vary by region and by scale, and it's important that we put more research into that as well and not continue with the path of agricultural production that is harmful to our environment, because again, everything is interconnected. The World Health Organization mentioned that 75 percent of new emerging infectious diseases are zoonotic in origin, and the leading causation of that is land clearing. And that's for deforestation and for land conversion for agriculture. Everything is interconnected, and we have to be mindful while we're coming up with these solutions.
Frank Biermann
Absolutely, I fully agree. And one part of the story is the production of livestock, of course. I think it's, technically, from a system perspective, almost like a silver bullet. I mean, if you look at the data, I think we're kind of about 50 percent of the land that is usable on our planet is used for agriculture. So it's kind of everything that is not like a dune or rock or desert, or whatever or glacier. This is 50 percent of that land we're using; the rest is for forests, shrubs, settlements, freshwater areas, and others. And of this land, I mean, 70 percent, we are using for agriculture for livestock, which is meat and dairy. And so here, technically, I mean, this is a huge part of the terrestrial landscape that is used for a product that is not necessarily needed. So here, I think strong policies that are reducing the consumption, especially of meat, I mean, it's not a silver bullet as such for all kinds of problems, but it's certainly helpful. And this is one thing that is absolutely missing in the public debate sufficiently. I mean, my students are, quite a few of my students are vegetarians, of course, but as a political challenge, I think it's not. We talk about carbon taxes to reduce the amount of carbon that people use. But I would be very much supportive also of meat taxation and regulation to reduce the use of meat because this reduces the pressure as you laid out; it reduces substantially the pressure on land, in general. Of course, there are exceptions, it's a bit more nuanced, but I think this is one of the areas where I think policies could make a difference.
Kimberly White
Definitely, and industrial agriculture is a leading cause of the climate crisis. Animal agriculture specifically emits around seven gigatons of carbon dioxide annually, and the majority of those emissions come from beef and cattle. The process of creating just one kilogram of beef requires 25 kilograms of grain and 15,000 liters of water. That's just not sustainable for our growing population.
Frank Biermann
I mean, of course. I understand that. I mean, wasn't it like the United States, where one state has introduced a meat-free day, and the other has introduced a meat day. So it is a big societal challenge and debatable, but I'm absolutely fully in agreement with the data and your conclusion that you just laid out. I think this is one of the elements of change that we can accept and drive forward. It certainly is an uphill struggle. I mean, the point is, what's very important in these debates, I mean, kind of this is, among sustainability practitioners and scholars, I think there's a lot of agreement on this point. I think one point is, of course, very important for many of these measures, especially taxation. It has to be organized and designed in a way that the poor are protected. And I think it's very important. So if you have any taxation for environmental bad's, like carbon or meat, it has to be organized in a way that the poor benefit. That was a key issue, especially on carbon taxation. I think it's important to design these policies at whatever scale you want to do, national, statewide in America, or globally, that you do take the global inequalities, national inequalities into account, and whatever you want to design, I think that's very, very important. And also I think it's not only a kind of putting the blame on people individually, but it's also very much on structures. And it's also important to take into account that we should not have just an approach where we say people have to change, but certainly, they have to. But it's very much also a challenge to change the structures, economic structures, political structures to allow a more sustainable lifestyle.
Kimberly White
How can Earth System Governance help bring about the ambitious changes critical to addressing current and future generations' biggest problems?
Frank Biermann
So, essentially, what we are talking about in the Earth System Governance Project is a transformation of governance systems at the local level, the national level, and the global level. I mean, this is interlinked; it's multi-level governance. So we have to change the way how politically, institutionally we are governing the local space, villages and cities, and regions and provinces. We have to change the national system. And also, this is my own personal research, is very much at the global level. So I'm very keen on understanding, especially how we can change the global governance system, which we have inherited from the 19th century. Which has changed a little bit in the 20th century, and we have to make it fit for the 21st century. And that means to me that we need to have stronger institutions that are able to deal with these challenges, climate change, biodiversity, but also food, water, energy, and providing also these resources to those who are needing them.
We need to have a huge public movement, especially in the rich countries in the north, for massive decarbonization, for massive changes in the way we're dealing with land and water and many of these resources. Changes also to international relations, where the north is, in many ways, still exploiting countries in the south, and this needs to change. And I think this is very much, talking here on this podcast is very much a challenge for everybody to get involved and participate in working and fighting and struggling for a better world. And I think this is very much a challenge for the current generation. Because if you look carefully at the data, like climate change is the biggest example probably, again, I think that the current generation is probably the last generation that will not be most brutally affected by climate change.
So it's a very, very important point of time, right now, these years and these years are so important. And in the American context, since you're based in the United States, of course, we have a window of opportunity because we had a change in the administration, which means that now these issues are at least higher on the agenda. So it's really the moment where we can really work towards much stronger efforts to keep the planet in some form or shape in the way how we have inherited the earth from our ancestors.
Kimberly White
Absolutely, and I think the Earth System Governance initiatives you're working on have been quite impressive and help move the needle. And again, we need to amp up our ambition, like our national commitments and what we're doing at the state and city level and the business level. We have to continue working toward climate action. Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres has said that the war on nature that we're currently waging is suicidal. So we don't have time to wait anymore, we have to do this action now. Or else, you know, we're not going to have this future that we want for our kids and our grandkids.
Frank Biermann
I fully agree.
Kimberly White
So, in Planetary Justice: A Research Framework, you discuss how we have begun to see a justice turn in political discourse and the need for a "richer debate on the conceptual foundations of what justice research on global sustainability environmental change could mean," you also propose a new conceptual framework on planetary justice. Can you tell us more about this framework?
Frank Biermann
Thank you so much. I mean, this is really one of my research projects that are really very dear to my heart. I'm very passionate about it. And just in basic terms, first justice. And justice, I mean, I mentioned already, I think, at the beginning of the podcast, we live in an extremely unequal world, I mean, as a human species. The wealth on our planet is absolutely unequally divided. I mean, the data is all well known, and for example, one percent of the richest people on our planet have as much wealth as more than half of humanity, and that's a huge imbalance. I think half of the world's population has less than 5 US dollars per day. And we have this tremendous accumulation of wealth increasingly, also with the billionaires, with the eight richest people in the world. So inequality is tremendous. And it has increased a lot over the last 10 or 20 years. And as I perceive this, it's a value judgment. I mean, it's not fair. So we have to work towards it. So it's a question of injustice, which is also driving in, in many ways, all kinds of sustainability issues. So, therefore, also, I mean, it's, I'm not the only person to say this as a new or increasing reference in the scientific literature also about questions of justice. Environmental justice has been discussed for many, many decades already; fantastic work has been done on the environmental justice community. And you'll find it in all kinds of other communities as well. So this is what we described as a justice turn in the sustainability debate and the earth system governance debate as well. The point is, and this is what we try to address in this paper, is that there's no common agreement of justice. I mean, so everybody uses the word, and everybody wants to have justice and less inequality. But what exactly is meant? This is quite often kind of left vague or not defined or is not further explicated. And this is a problem.
So what we try to do on this particular paper that you're referring to is that we tried to create a framework, which is built on existing philosophies; it's not new. What we did, we just tried to organize as political scientists, not philosophers, not as this, but as political science, try to organize the entire debate of injustice of the last 2000 years, some in kind of in very rough ways on very simple questions, simple questions that we said. So you can just, it's almost like a questionnaire that can help people to identify what kind of theory of justice you are adhering to. What is your position when it comes to planetary justice? So this is what we developed. And we did this for a purpose that we hope that this framework can be used or could be used for research. For example, in integrated assessment models, these are kind of these computer models that are predicting, not predicting our future, but they provide scenarios they provide an idea about how the future could look like under certain conditions and certain assumptions. And here, we believe that these ethical positions that we developed, a series of justice frameworks that we develop, could be useful to shape this analysis in a way that is much more linked to real philosophical traditions and positions. We try to bring together, we try to bring a framework that can be used for modelers, but it's based on political theory in a much more concrete, much more meaningful way. And the same is also true for text, and just for any political position, for any book, for any article ever you do. We hope that our framework can help to analyze text, to analyze its causes, and to really make it much more explicit what kind of justice discourse is underlying this particular paper, underlying in this particular position, and try to make it more explicit, and therefore have a much more informed discussion about what justice actually means. And this is one part. And the other part is also that we, this is a start. I mean, it's also just one paper. So we still trying to build up a community of researchers and all to try to explore in more detail this idea about planetary justice, and we have environmental justice, but as I said, in the beginning, tried to explain. So environmentalism is a little bit like the 19th or 20th century. So now we are facing these issues of planetary transformation, intergenerational justice, interspecies justice, intragenerational justice, all these different problems that come up, and how can we understand justice between species, between generations in a meaningful way and be tried to bring this all forward. And we have, and this is a little announcement almost, we have a task force for that, we have the Planetary Justice Task Force, which is this small network of colleagues in the Earth System Governance Project that is discussing these issues. And we meet on a regular basis, and we exchange papers. We have a special issue in the Earth System Governance Journal in which we are discussing these issues. So it's a very, very exciting area of research, and if anybody has any views and comments, I'm very also eager to hear from the communities who have listened to this podcast, I'm always keen to hear what other people think about planetary justice.
Kimberly White
Absolutely, and during this time, a lot of conversation, especially in I'd say, the past year or two, has been focused around the topic of climate justice. So I find the concept of planetary justice that you discuss, particularly very interesting. Can you share your thoughts on the proposal by the Common Home of Humanity?
Frank Biermann
Oh, thank you. Very good question. Of course. Yeah. I'm extremely intrigued by this initiative. I think it's extremely important. It's important to bring together all these different scientific communities that the Common Home of Humanity idea tries to bring together. I'm very supportive of this idea about developing earth system law.
So there are one or two issues, I think, for the next phase of this line of research, that I think are important to consider. One is the issue, I mean, if you look at the text of common heritage, it's a lot about humanity. And as I mentioned earlier, it has a little bit of following this One Humankind narrative, in the sense that we all together are all happy and everything is fine. But this is actually not the point. I mean, because humanity is not like that. I mean, so the term humanity and the term humankind are blurring any consideration of poverty, conflict, exploitation, colonialism, racism, misogynism, and many other issues. So it kind of tries to present a picture that is maybe more rosy than it is. And I think it would be great in the further development of the common heritage idea and this condominium idea, to bring in more the conflictual and inequality aspects of humanities. I think this would be, I think, important also for the effect on the impact of this fantastic idea.
The same as a bit about they're relying a lot on the planetary boundaries concept, which also has been a major impact on the earth system science and the earth systems governance idea. But these boundaries are defined by the natural conditions. It's a natural science concept, essentially. So here, the question is, where are the social boundaries? I mean, where are the boundaries of our societies in terms of hunger and terms of exploitation, in terms of lack of shelter, lack of clean water, etc.? So these boundaries are equally important, and they're not necessarily part of this concept. And I think they could be stronger in the common heritage community as well. So I think it's a fantastic idea, but the social boundaries could be brought in, it's not necessarily the way the well-know doughnut is doing it, in a sense, by adding a layer of boundaries, I think it's much more a matter of integration, of integrating social-ecological boundaries and social-ecological systems. I think that's the key way forward.
So I would kind of invite, also very happy to discuss it with the colleagues of the common heritage of humankind approach to developing the planetary boundaries concept more into a direction where the social aspects are much, much stronger.
So just to put it simply, I think it's really a very, very important initiative. But I think it's important also to strengthen the focus on inequality, injustice, and colonialism, and many other ways on which humankind is actually not one humankind, but the divided humankind's, and to bring in a stronger focus on these social boundaries and social-ecological systems, and maybe also to discuss in more detail, but this is something we can maybe do in the years to come about the governance mechanisms that need to be in place to deal with the value conflicts that are inherent in the common home of humankind.
Kimberly White
Alright, and there you have it. The big challenge facing humanity is climate change. Massive changes in the planetary systems have already been observed and it is imperative that we take action now. Our policies are insufficient. We need a paradigm shift that integrates social-ecological boundaries and social-ecological systems. We need to have stronger institutions that are equipped to address the challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss, and land degradation while also supporting and empowering the most vulnerable societies in our global community. That is all for today, and thank you for joining us for this episode of Common Home Conversations Beyond UN75. Please subscribe, share, and be sure to tune in on April 21st to continue the conversation with our special guest, Maja Groff, international lawyer and Convenor of the Climate Governance Commission. And visit us at www.ThePlanetaryPress.com for more episodes and the latest news in sustainability, climate change, and the environment.
Interview TranscriptTranscribed by Otter AI
Kimberly WhiteHello and welcome to Common Home Conversations. Today we are joined by Princess Esméralda of Belgium, journalist, documentary‐maker, environmental activist, and President of the King Leopold III Fund for Nature Exploration and Conservation. Thank you so much for joining us today!
Princess EsméraldaThank you for inviting me.
Kimberly WhiteSo you’re the President of the King Leopold III Fund for Nature Exploration, and Conservation. Can you tell us more about the King Leopold Fund and what it aims to accomplish?
Princess EsméraldaYeah, sure, it was created by my father in 1972. And I have to tell you that my father was a pioneer in the field of the environment because as a young, very young man in the 1930s, he was already very concerned about the state of nature and the way human beings were having an impact on biodiversity. And he made a speech in 1934, in London, saying that his generation had absolutely no excuse not to see all the damage that we were already doing on the natural world. So that’s pretty early in the time. And then, in the ‘60s and ‘70s, he traveled extensively, especially in Latin America, in the Amazon. He spent several months with Indigenous communities there. And he decided to create this fund, not only to scientifically explore nature but also to protect it, and to protect the Indigenous communities that he had seen were the best custodians of our biodiversity. So he created this fund, and after his death in 1983, I became President, and we are very active. Actually, we finance probably between 10 and 20 missions a year all over the world, both in the field of exploration and in the field of conservation.
Kimberly WhiteThat’s very impressive. So can you tell us about some of the most recent missions you’re funding?
Princess EsméraldaYeah, sure. So we have done a lot of missions in Africa lately, related to the big apes. So you might know that there is a very important park in Africa called Virunga, which is a jewel of biodiversity and has also the famous gorillas, which at one point were on the brink of extinction. And luckily, now really, their population has grown again. And it’s really a big success, although it’s a part of Africa, which is extremely volatile because there’s a lot of violence and armed conflict. And so there are many problems. But we work also closely with the park, and we have done some missions there to scientifically study those species, and that’s only one example. But then we have also a lot of missions in South America, also sometimes in North America. Whether it is to study some new species of insects, so it’s very diverse, we have really a lot of different missions.
Kimberly WhiteThat’s amazing. And I love the work that you’re doing in Virunga, it’s great because with mountain gorillas and with all gorillas, really, they are critically endangered. And right now, the conservation efforts have been extremely helpful. And currently, I think they’re the only great ape in the world with an increasing population.
Princess EsméraldaYes, it’s fantastic.
Kimberly WhiteSo, you and your daughter climbed Kilimanjaro in 2019 to raise funds for an NGO in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Hero Women Rising. Can you tell us more about this experience and what led you to do this?
Princess EsméraldaAh, it was my meeting with an extraordinary woman, and this woman is named Neema Namadamu, she’s from the DRC. She’s from Kivu, which is a province of the South, which is extremely dangerous for locals, but especially for women. The violence against women is terrible. And I met Neema, and she told me about her life. And let me just tell you in a few minutes about her life. She got polio when she was very young. I think she was two. And immediately, her father said, “If I have a daughter who has polio, she will never be able to marry,”- which is something very important in the community there. And so he left his wife. And Neema’s mother said, “I want to give a chance to my daughter to go to school.” And because they lived in a village, and there was no way they could find a way to get to school, which was quite far, far away. She decided, yes, she would take her daughter to school, and she took her on her back every day. I think it was about five or six kilometers every day to go to the school. Until Neema became an adolescent, it was difficult at that time for her mother to carry her. So she sent her in the valley down where she could easily go to school. And Neema said, “For the love of my mother, I have to continue to go to school.”
She probably was the first of her community to go all the way to university, to graduate from university. All the time, because she said I have to do something for my mother who really sacrificed so much for me. And then Neema said, “I want to do the same for the girls of my community.” And a few years later, she decided to create a program for the girls to keep girls in school. Because what happens also in many regions of the world, and there particularly, is that when the girls have their first menstruation, they miss school for a few days because they don’t have all the necessary tools. And then the parents say, “Oh, their results are not so good, we should stop. Why do we pay for school if the girls have such bad marks?” So Neema decided to go to school to teach the girls to show them what you can do if you have an education. And she has been extremely successful with her program to keep girls at school. And I said, “Okay, she inspired me so much, because she, with so many handicaps, not only physical but also due to the violence and the situation in her country. And she managed to achieve so many things.” So I said, “Okay, I will do something which is not comparable, but it’s also an effort. I will climb Kilimanjaro with my daughter to raise funds for her organization.” And that’s what we did. It was a wonderful experience, first of all, because I was with my daughter, and because it’s a very beautiful place. So yes, it’s something very special for me, this memory.
Kimberly WhiteHer story is inspiring. I know with advancing gender equality and empowering women, we can deliver those cross-sectoral long-term solutions to climate change. In fact, in 2019, Project Drawdown had listed in their solutions to climate change that educating girls is the sixth most important solution to mitigate the climate crisis. So the work she’s doing in the DRC is amazing.
Princess EsméraldaYeah, absolutely. Because you educate girls as we just said, first of all, they continue being educated. So they don’t marry too early, they don’t have children too early, they learn about the environment, they become really interested, they have solutions on the ground, there are so many advantages to that.
Kimberly WhiteAbsolutely, and women are on the frontlines of the climate crisis. I think the latest statistic was 80 percent of those people who have been displaced by the major weather events caused by climate change are women and girls. So it’s imperative that we not only focus our solutions on them, but we need to include them in the decision-making process as well.
Princess EsméraldaAbsolutely, because as you say, they are very much impacted. Because first of all, they are among the poorest in society in the developing countries. And also because they are the ones in charge of water collection, of food collection, for heating, and for cooking. So they are impacted by extreme weather events. But they are not only victims, as you rightly said; they are also agents of change and of solutions because they know so well the situation on the ground.
Kimberly WhiteAbsolutely. And another initiative that you’ve been an ardent supporter of has been the Stop Ecocide initiative. Now, ecocide is defined as the vast destruction of nature resulting from human activities. Can you elaborate on this, what the initiative hopes to accomplish, and what are some of the challenges of getting ecocide recognized as a crime?
Princess EsméraldaWell, the idea that companies and institutions can damage the earth, Mother Earth, as they are doing right now, whether it is by oil spilling or by mining and poisoning the rivers, I mean, the fact that nobody is accountable for that is something terrible, because they are really killing our life support system. So it would be something really fantastic if it could be declared as a crime against peace, a crime against humanity, like genocide is. And actually, it is very often linked because when you have a major accident in the Amazon or burning forests because of timber exploitation, they often, or actually, every time the human rights of the local populations are threatened. So I think it would be a major, major step, and I hope it will be recognized by the international tribunals’ court. But of course, now, what they are trying to do, the campaign of Stop Ecocide, is to find the right formulation, the right description of the crime, and this will take probably a few months, and then hopefully we will have a chance to succeed. I should add that what it would do, it would make them accountable because you cannot make a company accountable in this kind of action. But you can make the CEO or the President of the company accountable. And that would have a major impact probably.
Kimberly WhiteThat was actually one of the things I found interesting about the Stop Ecocide initiative. What they proposed is that by making ecocide a criminal offense, it goes beyond just a slap on the wrist, such as fines, which the companies often budget for. So it would actually bring forth real consequences for the offenders, which could include being arrested. That could cause some change.
Princess EsméraldaYeah, really, it would be something important, and I think more and more countries are beginning to understand the value of that.
Kimberly WhiteAnd I believe Belgium recently introduced a bill to make ecocide a crime. Is that correct?
Princess EsméraldaYes, absolutely.
Kimberly WhiteThat’s great. We really need to see more countries taking action on this.
Princess EsméraldaAnd of course, there are some very famous supporters because Pope Francis has spoken already many times about the notion of ecocide.
Kimberly WhiteGetting that high-level support is great. Ecocide should be recognized as a crime, so I think the work that they’re doing is fantastic and very much needed, especially as we’re dealing with the converging climate and biodiversity crises.
Princess EsméraldaYes, absolutely.
Kimberly WhiteSo we were touching on the Amazon just a few minutes ago. And I want to dive into that a little bit further. Last month, you took part in a very special event called Protect the Amazon, which sought to amplify Amazonian Indigenous voices. Could you share with us some of the key takeaways and calls to action from this event?
Princess EsméraldaYes, we wanted to really amplify the voices of the Indigenous communities in the Amazon, which are suffering so much at the moment. First of all, with the pandemic, because they really have a second wave there, which is very frightening. And they don’t have access to vaccines. And they have been, really if we can say forgotten, whether it is voluntarily or not by the government. So we wanted to hear about that, but also about the crisis, the biodiversity loss, which is happening because the forest is burning, has been burning in 2019, in 2020, more and more, and most of those fires were, of course, criminal. And it is all the time increasing, because there are invasions of their lands by farmers, by miners, and loggers. And so we wanted to hear from them what is the message. And the message is, “We are the best custodians of the forest.”
The Amazon, if it’s burning at the rate as it is now, may get to a tipping point where it becomes a savannah, which will be a disaster for the climate of the whole world actually, and for the cycle of water especially. And because those communities are the best guardians, they say, “Please help us. We need to have our lands demarcated. We need more lands demarcated. And you have to denounce all the products which are coming to Europe and to the US and to China, from illegal deforestation.” In a way, we are complicit when we consume all those products, whether it’s wood or meat. And that was their message, “Please, we are saving biodiversity for the whole of the world. Please help us. We cannot do that alone.”
Kimberly WhiteYeah, and on the Amazon fires, we touched on this a little bit in an interview with Maria Antonia Tigre, with the Global Network for the Study of Human Rights and the Environment, which was, the 2019 Amazon fires made global headlines, but the 2020 fire season set new records, and that didn’t receive as much coverage, probably due to everything going on with COVID. But it was an area equivalent to the size of the United Kingdom that burned across Brazil up until September.
Princess EsméraldaYeah, exactly. And as you say, because there was the pandemic, everybody was a bit focused on that. And that was probably one of the reasons that all the illegal farmers and loggers had some more, you know, the possibility of doing so because the whole world was not watching.
Kimberly WhiteAbsolutely, and there were some instances where the authorities were kept from going out because fieldwork was deemed unsafe. So it gave the illegal loggers, the illegal miners, and ranchers this kind of free rein to do whatever they wanted. And it was detrimental.
Princess EsméraldaYeah, exactly. Yeah. Besides, they were bringing also the disease with them very often because the communities were so vulnerable to those contacts, and they were the vector of the virus several times.
Kimberly WhiteYeah, it’s been heartbreaking to see because it is something we need to talk about, and with COVID, a lot of these messages have, unfortunately, been lost in the midst of news coverage. It’s been tragic everywhere, but especially in those Indigenous communities who have been hit harder, not just in the Amazon, but everywhere. Indigenous communities in the United States were hit much harder than other communities.
Princess EsméraldaYeah, you’re right to say that because also, we can talk about the second-largest rainforest in the world, which is in the middle of Africa. And the Congo Basin forest, which is also very much under threat from loggers and many big corporations there, and obviously doesn’t make as many headlines as the Amazon. So it’s a message really, which is global, the Indigenous communities all over the world, in all the countries, and the US, are threatened. Their rights are threatened, and their very livelihood also.
Kimberly WhiteAnd for our listeners at home, is there a place that you recommend that they go to learn more from the event, such as a website, or is there an initiative that you would like to point them to?
Princess EsméraldaWell, the program is now on-demand on EarthX TV. So it can be seen the two parts, we made it in four parts, and they are being added every week. So it’s possible to see. And, of course, it’s really nice to hear and informative to hear all what the Indigenous leaders had to say on the program.
Kimberly WhiteGlobally, there has been a lot of concern regarding the destruction of the Amazon, especially in recent years, as we just discussed with the spike in fires. However, despite this growing concern, there are no incentives in place for the conservation or restoration of the Amazon. A key theme of last month’s special was highlighting our common future and responsibility to work with Indigenous peoples and to help preserve one of the natural world’s most vital resources, the Amazon. How can the legal recognition and protection of the earth system, as proposed by the Common Home of Humanity, help preserve this critical ecosystem?
Princess EsméraldaI think it’s a very important concept. To just realize that we live on the same planet, we breathe the same air, we depend so much on nature, and on everything that it gives us, not only for our physical needs but for our mental needs. And we have to treat this planet, this environment, the way it deserves, and not continue to destroy it with impunity. We are already at a point which is catastrophic for biodiversity and for the climate. So we have to realize that it is our responsibility, of each one of us.
Kimberly WhiteAbsolutely. And to dive in a little bit further, do you think the common heritage concept for the earth system would better enable us to manage the climate and biodiversity crises?
Princess EsméraldaYes, it would certainly bring a complete change of spirit, a change of mind.
Kimberly WhiteMy next question is regarding the NDC Synthesis Report that came out in February. The UNFCCC recently released that report which measures the progress of National Climate Action Plans. However, despite current NDCs, we are falling far short of the level of action needed to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. So we’re really at a make-or-break moment with the climate emergency, and business as usual is not getting us there. In your opinion, where do we go from here? How can we raise our collective ambition and garner the political will necessary to address this existential threat?
Princess EsméraldaI think it’s quite disheartening to see that we are in 2021, six years after the Paris Accord and that we have had so many fantastic words and speeches and promises, as you just mentioned, not much action. So I think we have very little time left. So the scientists tell us that this is the decade that we have to act, and we have to go much faster. So the politics don’t seem to be at the same pace as we need. So I really very much think that it is our responsibility, each of us, all the citizens, to put maximum pressure on our leaders for them to act now. And this is at every level, I mean, the local level, the national level, and the global level. It’s only if we, all the citizens, all the people who can vote, all the young people who are really afraid and shouting in the street. I mean, we have to support them, the young people. We have to support the Indigenous people. We have to make the biggest coalition. We can do something. This is our common future. And it’s not so much in the future, actually, because so many people are already suffering today. If you see all that happened in the US last year, the fires, the hurricanes, if you see what happened in the Amazon, if you see what’s happening in Africa, in Asia, it’s everywhere, people are already dying and suffering. And this is only going to get worse unless we all become activists in our own way. I don’t mean that everybody has to go in the street, no, but everybody has to do something for it. Whether it is to speak to our local politician or our banker, all of that is useful to put the maximum pressure on the people who decide.
Kimberly WhiteAbsolutely, and as individuals, we really do have that power to make a difference as well. And going back to what we were discussing about the Amazon, a lot of that is consumer-driven. So we can make those choices to support companies that are doing things responsibly, ethically, and sustainably, instead of supporting companies that are funding the deforestation happening in the Amazon or funding all of this environmental degradation. When it comes down to it, well, we vote with our dollars essentially.
Princess EsméraldaYes, it’s, it’s something we can do every day. We can choose the products which are not coming from deforestation. Make a little bit of research about the companies and also do some research about the banks, because the financial institution, of course, is a big part in all that funding, sometimes projects which are really destroying the environment. So we can talk to the people in our bank and say that we don’t like when they finance this or that project, we have as a citizen, a lot of power.
Kimberly WhiteAnd with the finance, we’ve been seeing this shift from several of the big banks where they’re starting to recognize to ensure their own survival, they’re going to have to get on board with climate action, whether they like it or not. We’ve seen several commitments to stop funding for oil exploration and drilling out in the Arctic as well, and that came from pressure from citizens. It came from people standing up and saying, “We’re not going to support you if you keep doing this.”
Princess EsméraldaYes, it’s essential that the citizens take that in their hands and put pressure. And it’s, as you said, it’s the financial institutions, it’s also the universities. When students say to their university, “We don’t want you to have investments in fossil fuels or in industries that are polluting and destroying the environment.” Well, it has an effect, several universities have already, and several in the US and the UK, and elsewhere have already decided to divest. And that was the pressure from all the students.
Kimberly WhiteThat’s fantastic. And it just continues to show that we are capable of doing this, we are capable of moving the needle and, you know, with our elected officials, we elect them, so we have to make sure that they’re standing up for the values that we believe in, protecting our planet and protecting our global community.
Princess EsméraldaOf course, it’s not always easy because there are a lot of very powerful lobbies against us. But if we are many, many, many, we can make a difference.
Kimberly WhiteAbsolutely. Before we go, is there anything else you’d like to share with our audience?
Princess EsméraldaI really want to give a message of hope because I know that it can make an enormous difference. If as many people as possible take a stand and really try to do something to save, I won’t say our planet because the planet can survive, but to save ourselves, our species, and so many other animal species around us, which are on the brink of extinction. So we really have to do something all together.
Kimberly WhiteAlright, and there you have it. We all live on the same planet, and we breathe the same air. We depend on nature and everything that it gives us. When it comes to the existential threats that we are currently facing, whether it’s the climate crisis or biodiversity loss, it’s up to us to put pressure at every level of government and society to ensure our common future. That is all for today, and thank you for joining us for this episode of Common Home Conversations Beyond UN75. Please subscribe, share, and be sure to tune in on April 7th to continue the conversation with our special guest, Frank Biermann, Professor of Global Sustainability Governance at Utrecht University, Director of the ERC GlobalGoals project, Founder of the Earth System Governance Project, and Editor of the Earth System Governance journal. And visit us at www.ThePlanetaryPress.com for more episodes and the latest news in sustainability, climate change, and the environment.
Interview Transcript
Transcribed by Otter AI
Kimberly White
Hello and welcome to Common Home Conversations. Today we are joined by Louis Kotzé, Research Professor at North-West University and Senior Professorial Fellow in Earth System Law at the University of Lincoln. Thank you for joining us today!
Louis Kotzé
Thank you for the invitation, Kimberly. I'm very excited to speak to you.
Kimberly White
So you're a Research Professor of Law at North-West University in South Africa, and you are a Senior Professional Fellow in Earth System Law at the University of Lincoln. Can you tell us what earth system law is?
Louis Kotzé
Oh, yes. So earth system law is a new legal paradigm that we've been working on for the last couple of years. And in developing this new legal paradigm, we realized, and we put great emphasis on the fact that as a human social system, law is an essential element of governance. And it certainly serves a very useful purpose as a vehicle for shaping behavior to achieve certain desired ends. That is the classical role of law after all, and law also plays a critically important role in environmental governance or the more broadly conceived idea of earth system governance, certainly, insofar as it seeks to shape or regulate or constrain, or more broadly would govern, how humans interact with other earth system constituents, aspects, and earth system processes. But we think that because law is caught up within, how can one put it, the stifling confines of its outdated Holocene orientated assumptions and orientation. It's not necessarily seen to be compatible anymore with and responsive to an earth system approach to governance which means that it cannot meaningfully address the full scope of all the legal aspects of earth system governance. So basically, in a nutshell, environmental law, which is the legal discipline most obviously concerned with environmental impacts, does not take a systems approach. And we need to consider this, I think, in the context of the Anthropocene trope, which is also a main part of my body of work. And the legal implications of the Anthropocene trope are becoming increasingly clear, no less, because of this new geological terminology because that's what it is; it's a geological term. It casts no judgment on the desirability or otherwise of this new state of affairs. But it does invite profound normative questions, as Tim Stephens, our friend from the University of Sydney, says. And I think that these questions will ask of us to consider how and by us I specifically mean lawyers, but also other scientists and people interested in governance. These questions will ask us to consider how, and the extent to which, the Anthropocene as epistemology or trope is changing our perceptions of law as a regulatory institution, including our perception of law's content, its purpose, its objectives, and certainly also its design. These questions will require us to reflect on human agency and the role of law in governing human actions in the Anthropocene, including certainly the impacts of these actions on the earth system and on the many other earth system processes and aspects and the links that these also have continued human existence on earth. So, to me, at least, the Anthropocene in this sense, allows for a sort of opening up, as it were of prohibitive epistemic closures in the law and of the legal discourse more generally, and perhaps even more importantly, of the world order that the law operatively seeks to maintain, to a range of other understandings of cognitive frameworks for global environmental change. So the Anthropocene reveals the contexts to contemplate possible ways to mediate this change through the law. And as a result, I think there is pretty much general agreement that the Anthropocene will ask of us to critically revisit the many traditional or trite assumptions that we have internalized over so many years, certainly since 1972 since the Stockholm conference.
The idea of earth system law is that the development of such a new legal paradigm will require considerable creative, certainly, out-of-the-box thinking alongside the imagery of this earth system metaphor. And this will not be a straightforward or easy task, we think. And lawyers cannot go this alone. So we would need to embrace and rely on the expertise and the insights and the creative thinking of a whole range of other disciplines. I'm thinking of earth system scientists, geologists, geographers, ethicists, to name but a few. And I think we should be motivated by the idea that little is more difficult than learning to think differently. And we would need, certainly as lawyers speaking for myself as an environmental lawyer, to try and think differently. Now, are we willing, and will we ultimately be able to upset and criticize and rethink and reconfigure our traditions, our beliefs and attitudes, when it comes to thinking about a different type of law or legal paradigm that we want to have, and that's a better fit for the purpose of the Anthropocene? Personally, I believe that we are, and I want to invite people to join us in exploring the new legal paradigm of earth system law. And I see certainly a lot of potential for people involved in the Common Home of Humanity initiative, also to participate in this grander project, Kimberly, thanks.
Kimberly White
Thank you. I think that's great. We actually had professor Will Steffen on one of our first episodes, and he's one of the top earth system scientists. And we were able to learn about more of the science. So it's really great to learn more about the law side of the earth system.
Louis Kotzé
Absolutely. We certainly rely a lot on the work of Will Steffen. And also, certainly, his work on planetary boundaries with Johan Rockström. And in the next few weeks, a new research handbook on law, governance, and planetary boundaries will appear with Edward Elgar that was co-edited by myself and Duncan French, with contributions actually also from Johan Rockström, from Will Steffen, and several other people that are working in this area.
Kimberly White
Fantastic, looking forward to checking that out. And to go further into earth system law, you're actually one of the founders of the Earth System Law Task Force. Can you tell us more about this?
Louis Kotzé
Yes. So the task force is an extremely exciting endeavor, an opportunity to become involved with the work on earth system law. So it is part of the Earth System Governance Network that was founded by Professor Frank Biermann from Utrecht. The Earth System Governance Network is currently, it's a global research alliance, and it is the largest social science research network in the area of governance and global environmental change. Now, the Earth System Governance Research Alliance takes up the challenge of exploring political solutions, including also legal solutions, of course, because of the link between politics and law and social behavior, and model more effective governance mechanisms to cope with the current transitions in the biochemical systems of the planet or they more broadly see the earth system. So the Earth System Governance Project and its network set up the task force. There are other task forces as well dealing with other issues, and ours was created in 2017. And it focuses specifically on earth system law. The task force established an interdisciplinary community of scientists, mostly lawyers, but there are certainly also non-lawyers among us, thank heavens. There's a saying, keep the lawyers out, and that makes a lot of sense if you want to find real solutions to problems. And it is people working in the field of sustainability, law, and governance at all levels of social organization. And this is also an open and very warm invitation to everyone to come and join us. So Rakhyun Kim and I, as you said, are the scientific co-coordinators, and we would love for people to sign up to the work that we do. In 2019, the network's Earth System Governance Network launched its specialist journal with Elsevier, called Earth System Governance. And it includes a dedicated section for law, and I'm the associate editor for that section of law. And it was in this journal that Rakhyun and I published this first piece on earth system law. And I'm very happy to say that in the next few months, there will also be a special issue on earth system law later this year, where we've invited a range of specialists to reflect on this growing debate about what earth system law is. Perhaps if anyone is interested, you are more than welcome to simply search for Earth System Governance Network, and you'll be directed to the official website. And then, you will find all of the information that you need about the annual conference of this network, which this year will hopefully, COVID restrictions permitting, take place in Bratislava. There's a lot of online events as well. Common Home of Humanity is also very directly involved with the task force, to be sure, and its works, so there's a lot of connections. You'll also find a lot of information specifically on our task force and several other task forces. So please check it out. And if you are interested, get in touch either with the Earth System Governance Network or with me personally. My contact details are available on the internet or with Dr. Rakhyun Kim at Utrecht.
Kimberly White
Fantastic. I think that's going to be really interesting for everyone to check out. Now, I would like to dive in a little bit further into international environmental law. Currently, what do you see as the main limitations or challenges of international environmental law in the age of the Anthropocene?
Louis Kotzé
Oh, goodness, Kimberly, how much time do we have for this? This is obviously the big question. And it is an easy answer. But it's also a difficult answer. So I think much of my work the past years has been trying to look at what is wrong with international environmental law. And doing that, one kind of gets demotivated and pessimistic as well. That was also one of the reasons why we deliberately decided let's stop criticizing international environmental law and showing its gaps and let's try and look at the brightest side and what could be, and that is why we are trying to kind of think more optimistically about this evolving idea of earth system law. But what prompted us to look at it is exactly what you say is the limitations and the gaps in international environmental law. And there are many, but I think I could think of perhaps five, which we can have a brief discussion here about.
So first, I think we all agree that international environmental law emerged in the years following the Great Acceleration, which is still basically the current post-Industrial Revolution era that we live in. And it's a period in earth's geological history that signals a global-level, synchronous step change in the human enterprise, and the simultaneous human-driven change in many features of earth subsystems structure and functioning. But despite its relative maturity, if one assumes that international environmental law already started developing in the early 1970s, at least formally, it remains a regulatory intervention that is still at the periphery of the social regulatory system. It is essentially, let's be honest, a collection of prohibitions with modest impacts on deeply intertwined social-ecological relationships. And in sum, I think it's fair to say that international environmental law, and environmental law more broadly, also on domestic and regional levels, have failed to keep humanity from crossing the critical planetary boundaries that exemplify the Anthropocene social-ecological crisis in concrete terms. So it's clear the earth system science, as Will Steffen would have told you as well, certainly in his podcast, is that the science is there, we are crossing planetary boundaries, we are disrupting the earth system. And of course, one cannot only expect of the law to be responsible for keeping us within the safe operating space of the planetary boundaries, and to keep the earth system intact, and to protect its integrity, and to ensure planetary justice, and all of this. Law alone is not up to the task, and it's unfair to expect that law alone should be responsible for this, but law will play a decidedly important role in doing this, along with other social regulatory interventions such as politics, economics, religion, literature, ethics, the whole collection of social and normative interventions that shape human behavior. So, law won't be solely, exclusively responsible for this, it would be unreasonable to expect it, but it would play a decidedly important role. And my point is the role that international environmental law has played to date has not been all that great, even though, of course, there are exceptions and some victories such as the ozone layer, where international law has actually managed to make a very positive contribution, but it can still do much more.
So a second concern, I think, is international environmental law's very worrying lack of ambition. It's lack of normative ambition at a time when precisely such ambition is critically required. The state of our deteriorated earth system is such that deep structural change in global governance and global law is urgently required both inside and outside of the formal United Nations system. But environmental law, at best, only pursues incremental change in the form of the public sphere, which is insufficient to bring about social-ecological change at the level and with the speed needed to respond to meaningful earth system transformations.
A third point, perhaps, is that the multilateral environmental law and governance domain remains predominantly state-centric, largely depending on the state as the central source of its legitimacy and authority. And this is so despite the emergence of non-state entities and civil society movements, as increasingly important actors in polycentric forms have a type of bottom-up global environmental governance. So, despite the emergence of these non-state actors, they still do not play any seriously meaningful role in the negotiation, enforcement, and revision of multilateral environmental agreements, which still seem to be the mainstay of international environmental law, and which is still seen as the only guiding or behavioral changing instruments of international environmental law. So, a purely state-centric legal paradigm obviously shuts out any meaningful involvement, incentivization, and promotion of non-state actors in earth system governance, again at a time when such involvement is, in fact, required more than ever before.
A fourth aspect, certainly reflecting on its ontological orientation, and despite its rhetorical ambitions, the function of international environmental law in broad terms has been, let's be very honest, to promote a short-termist, utilitarian, and neoliberal economic human growth agenda by protecting environmental resources for the social, economic, and therefore unsustainable development of some privileged humans of the present generation. So, and this is a point that Klaus Bosselmann certainly has made many times over also in his podcast in this series and Prue Taylor as well, is that environmental law remains anthropocentric. And it is not predominantly concerned with advancing ecological sustainability well into the future, despite some encouraging, but ultimately, faltering normative attempts to do so during its early formative years. But the main point is that environmental law has failed to ensure any meaningful degree of sustainability with respect to humanity's continuing dependence on and interaction with ecological processes because it does not embrace an ecocentric orientation.
And the final point here, with respect to what is wrong with international environmental law, if I can put it this way, is that the focus of environmental law remains decidedly narrow and sectoral while the discipline of environmental law has correspondingly not yet fully embraced, to the extent that it should I think, an interdisciplinary research agenda. Mostly, perhaps, as a result of its historical development trajectory, environmental law does not follow an all-encompassing, integrated, and reflexive systems approach. Environmental law and much of its scholarship instead continued to view issues such as water, air, soil pollution, nature conservation, waste management as isolated, discrete issues that can be regulated by technocratic interventions based in and operationalized by sectoral and issue-specific laws. So it remains bound to define places, spaces, habitats, ecosystems, species, and objects. And this, of course, runs the risk of resulting in regime deference, regime abdication, and problem shifting, as Harro van Asselt and Rakhyun Kim have shown in much of their work. And this is a classic problem of fit between the global environmental governance architecture, including the legal rules that belong to that architecture, and the dynamic, the complexly adaptive and erratic earth system, as Oran Young argues, and certainly the body of international environmental law, and its accompanying institutional maze, on the one hand, and the functioning of the earth system on the other are currently not aligned. And that is also one of the reasons that prompted us to start thinking about the concept of earth system law as a kind of a bridge between the sectoral, mono-disciplinary approach of environmental law to an approach that more fully embraces an earth systems perspective.
Kimberly White
We may have touched on this a few minutes ago, but I want to explore it a little bit more, and that's the roots of environmental injustice. How deep into our past do the roots of environmental injustice go?
Louis Kotzé
My goodness, that is yes. So again, one can write a book about this, and several books have been written about this. So, it goes back probably since pre-colonial times, but we specifically observe it in the colonial era where industrialized nations kind of exploited and used their powers of innovation, their economic power, and their might, to exploit an extremely vulnerable world. Certainly being African coming from South Africa, one can also still even see the scars that these historical activities left and are still patently evident in much of Africa. So, yes, these injustices reached back to many, many generations before us, but not only to the living human world. I think one should also try and see planetary injustice in a much broader context to include the more than human world, nonhuman living beings, and the extent to which humans have as, kind of in a predatory way, fed and are still feeding off the nonhuman world, which we see as resources. And the word resource is, to me, a terrible word that is often used in law and environmental protection policies and in international environmental law, and elsewhere. And that certainly is the type of language that we need to shift away from. We must also be attentive to, if you look at critical legal scholarship, the work with people such as Anna Grear, for example, is doing and Sam Adelman, looking at the type of language that law employs that other people in the poor global south, it is still very masculine. And international environmental law embraces very much, I think, this masculinist ontology of the empowered white, Northern European, powerful male, human subject, which is not the type of ontology that I think is still appropriate anymore. We would need to embrace alternative ontologies of care that are much more open to other multiple gendered voices, certainly, other Indigenous views. And ontologies that also recognize the vulnerability of the living order; everyone is vulnerable, but some are more vulnerable than others. And our laws need to respond to that and need to be cognizant of that. But environmental justice is historical, but it is also obviously ongoing, and we see patterns of injustice very clearly currently, for example, also in COVID-19, isn't it? Where people in the global south are very clearly having far, far worse access to health care, to vaccines, and so forth. And this really is a concern, so it highlights COVID regrettably, that a lot of these injustices are still very much part of our society. And it is also being perpetuated, I think, to a considerable extent, by corporations. And certainly by corporate exploitation, also in the form of neocolonialism, where some countries are engaging in neocolonialist projects in Africa. In Latin America, for example, palm oil production, when massive, massive areas of rainforests are being destroyed to plant palm oil, people are forced off their lands, Indigenous communities are even killed.
We see this with the Shell Oil Company with the Indigenous people in Nigeria, for example, on the continent where I live. So we also need to be cognizant of and critical of ongoing corporate exploitation and these predatory practices that many governments, let's be honest, are underwriting and approving, and are even promoting.
Kimberly White
Absolutely, and, you know, on the palm oil issue, it's interesting you say that. That was the subject of a paper I wrote not too long ago, where I discussed how much Borneo has lost from the palm oil plantations and just how destructive that industry has been, and not just environmentally, but socially, there's a lot of issues that come with that as well. There have been numerous allegations of human trafficking in the palm oil industry. Unfortunately, there have been a lot of times, especially in rural communities, where these companies will pay their workers barely anything, and if they fail to meet their quotas, harvesters are threatened with pay cuts. Some have even had their passports seized by the companies in an effort to keep them from running away. Essentially, it's become this almost form of modern slavery where they can't leave until they pay off their debts to the company, which can take years. Child labor is also an issue in the palm oil industry. Children will have to drop out of school and go to work at these plantations if a family member is unable to meet their quotas due to illness, age, etc. And I think people don't realize, you know, how much of a problem palm oil is, and that's why we need to look for those more sustainable alternatives. Or, at the very least, make sure the palm oil being sourced is both ethical and environmentally sustainable.
Louis Kotzé
Absolutely, I cannot agree with you any more. And that, to me, is also where the benefit of a systems approach lie because, let's be honest, palm oil is a solution that not only environmental law, but other parts, other areas of law, has created. It is a solution to the potential energy crisis or to the ongoing rather energy crisis and as a means to address carbon outputs and so forth. So this solution in brackets is now turning out to be a massive problem because the solution was developed with a very one-sided point of view. So when we developed the situation, had we taken a systems perspective and actually look at what the long-term consequences of this could be, what the interests of the local communities would be, what the impacts of this on the communities would be, and so forth as you say, we might have even discarded palm oil as a possible solution and looked at something altogether different or we would have gone about it in a very different way than we currently are. Solar radiation management is another such example where we don't know what the... it is a type of new technology, but we are not entirely certain what the medium and long-term impacts are going to be on the entire earth system and on earth system integrity. And again, I think the only way to at best try and evaluate this would be through such a systems approach which would enable you to look at multiple perspectives and interests.
Kimberly White
Definitely, and, you know, going back to the economic perspective, I recently watched the Protect the Amazon special on EarthX. And there was an interview with Dr. David Suzuki, and he talked about how our global economy was built on the idea of cancer, and he compared the economic system to cancer cells. And I think it was probably one of the best descriptions of the destructive nature of the business as usual mindset of our economy that I've actually heard. I found that particularly interesting.
Louis Kotzé
Absolutely, and I mean to this end, we also need to recognize the extreme destructive power of neoliberal economic development and neoliberalism as such. And it is on these core ideas that we have kind of created, which Ben Richardson from the University of Tasmania called these concepts such as sustainable development palliatives. They are these ideas that we create, that we tell ourselves, yes, we need to balance, which is the word that's always used, economic, social and environmental concerns for the best outcome. But what does that balancing mean? What does it entail? Evidence and experience, certainly to date, suggest that it certainly results in massive environmental destruction. And it increases the vulnerability of especially vulnerable sectors of society and of the nonhuman world as well. And what I am happy about at least is that there seems to be an increased recognition, as you also say, within the scholarly community and elsewhere, also in civil society, about the very danger of these neoliberal concepts.
Kimberly White
Now, according to the recent NDC synthesis report, the new climate targets submitted by countries would reduce emissions levels by less than 1 percent by 2030. And the United Nations Secretary-General stated, "The science is clear, to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius we must cut global emissions by 45 percent by 2030 from 2010 levels." Now, current law seems unable to achieve deep structural reforms, and you mentioned that earlier. Do we need to rethink the legal concept of the planet, and what role can international environmental law play in helping us achieve this?
Louis Kotzé
Yes, absolutely. I think that the current international environmental law is certainly not sufficiently ambitious to, and therefore hence inappropriate for, tackling the climate crisis. And we see this also in the ongoing climate negotiations. We see this in the content of what is being negotiated. We see this in the Paris Agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, the UNFCCC, and the many decisions that are being taken is that countries simply for some other reason, now, we know what the reason is, it's because of economic development. But countries do not seem willing to take more drastic steps to commit themselves to be more ambitious. So, again, I think that we need to think hard about how we are going to achieve this. Law is not the only answer. Law will play a decidedly important role in this entire endeavor. Politics, of course, I think, is the main problem here. We would need to see better politics being made by better politicians that hopefully could also embrace more careful and caring epistemologies of care, such as those that we see emerging in Latin America, the rights of nature paradigm in Bolivia, Ecuador, and so forth. In South Africa, the concept of ubuntu, notions of degrowth, and so forth these all seem to be fairly radical, but they are only radical because they are in such stark contrast with the status quo. And I think once we start talking about these alternative, more normatively ambitious and radical concepts, and epistemologies of care and humility and vulnerability, would we be able to set the scene for perhaps even politicians and legislators and lawmakers everywhere to fully embrace these concepts when they make law and when they negotiate climate targets and so forth. And to this end, also civil societies playing a tremendously important role. The Fridays for Future movement, the international non-legal tribunals that are being held all over the world on human rights abuses, for example. These are all very powerful civil society energies that I think have considerable potential to getting us from here, where we currently are, to where we want to be. And this is a situation where we want to be, to me at least, a political, legal, economic order that would embrace the concerns of everyone equally. One that recognizes that everyone is vulnerable but that some are more vulnerable than others. So it is an order that should recognize, also differentiate the distributed vulnerability of people or humans and nonhumans equally.
Kimberly White
Now, more and more people are calling on their governments to meet the challenges of climate change. However, it's easier for governments and industries to prioritize corporate profits and short-term gain over intergenerational responsibilities. In "International Environmental Law's Lack of Normative Ambition: An Opportunity for the Global Pact and its Gap Report?" you said, "If we agree about everything, nothing changes. It is when people become hostile that human rights are adopted," Can civil disobedience be the spark needed to enact real change?
Louis Kotzé
Yes, those were probably the harsh words coming from me, but I won't apologize for them, and I will repeat them as well. And I still maintain exactly that sentiment, and I still support it to its fullest extent. I think civil disobedience would be key in trying to achieve the type of structural changes that would be necessary. Unfortunately, from my point of view, is that the entire COVID pandemic has unfortunately managed to shift a bit of the attention away from these emerging subtle energies that we saw around Greta Thunberg, for example. There are many other examples as well, the Fridays for Future movement. And it has, unfortunately, I think, managed to dilute a bit of this energy that we've seen before the pandemic, and I hope that we get this back. And I hope also that the patterns of injustice, the planetary patterns of injustice that the pandemic is now again, revealing, certainly also, I hope would be an instigator and a motivator for future civil disobedience movements. So, in summary, it would be key in initiating and driving the types of structural changes that we would need to see. And it's not about only civil society being involved. It is also about scholars becoming involved, students becoming involved because, in a sense, we are also obviously part of civil society. And in the work that we do, we need to be vocal. In this podcast series that you have, which is a great initiative, it raises awareness; it spurs people on, hopefully, to become more critical not to accept that the status quo is necessarily the only or the correct way to go about things in the future. If we can only learn to start being critical and to question and not simply accept everything as being the truth, then I think we've already won a big part of the battle. And that will enable us further to capitalize and to reinforce the emerging movements that are busy with and are engaged with civil disobedience, which must certainly be spurred on as far as possible.
Kimberly White
Absolutely, we can't be complacent anymore. Complacency is what got us into this mess in the first place.
Louis Kotzé
Absolutely, 100 percent. And again, it's by being critical, it is by asking the uncomfortable questions, let's be honest, and by doing uncomfortable things that would not necessarily be universally popular, that we would be pointing out what is wrong and what needs to change and then trying to motivate people and to get them on board to help us drive and move this change. I'm extremely excited about the collective global solidarity that is emerging and the collective energies that we see all over the world in many of these networks, the Common Home of Humanity initiative, the Earth System Governance Network. There are many other examples of people getting together and trying to point out and to illuminate, to reveal what is wrong and what needs to change. And as you say, try to think about innovative ways not to be complacent and to move things forward in a different direction.
Kimberly White
Absolutely. Change does not come from complacency, it comes from being uncomfortable. As you said, we need to ask those uncomfortable questions and have those conversations because they drive change. Now, one more question I would like to ask is on the Common Home of Humanity. Could you share your thoughts on the proposal from the Common Home and Humanity? Right now, climate is viewed as a common concern of humankind, do you think the common heritage concept for the earth system would better enable us to manage this social-ecological crisis?
Louis Kotzé
Absolutely, because the common heritage concept to me is another example of an epistemology of humility, an epistemology of care, of one that recognizes and sees the vulnerability of the entire living order, and one that is more and better able, certainly, to more holistically as well address the shared, the common, the shared social-ecological crisis and deeply pervasive and increasingly critical forms of planetary injustice that we are all experiencing across the world. So this initiative is a very useful attempt, I think, to illuminate and to reveal also our shared vulnerability. And its focus on the common heritage, the common home, the common problems that we share, but also the need to search for common solutions, is extremely valuable. And to that end, I think it also fits in very well and very neatly with our idea of earth system law and the project of earth system governance, to the extent that it recognizes a need for a holistic, common approach to the social-ecological crisis. And it also recognizes that the solution won't necessarily only lie in law or a specific type of law or international environmental law, but it will come from different places from international environmental law, from climate law, from civil society, and so forth. So it is certainly to me an extremely worthwhile initiative and endeavor, and I'm very happy to be part of this. I'm very happy to support it. And I'm extremely proud also to see how it has grown and how it is growing and the influence that it evidently is exerting. And the interest that it is attracting from multiple stakeholders at multiple levels involved in the various aspects of earth system governance.
Kimberly White
I couldn't agree with you more. Before we go, is there anything else you'd like to share with our audience?
Louis Kotzé
Well, what I can say is that I'm extremely grateful for opportunities such as this to be able to talk to people and to share ideas. Because I think this is a good starting point is that we need to talk to one another. Not in the formal conference setting, but also in alternative ways where we share our concerns, where we can be open and honest and be critical. And try to look for collective solutions also to the shared problem that we are facing. And I really hope, and I would encourage everyone to become involved in this conversation, and to make contact with people who are working in this field, and to contribute to this collective endeavor of trying to sketch out an alternative future, different pathways leading to different, more accommodating planetary futures that are caring, and that recognizes the vulnerability of the entire living order.
Kimberly White
Thank you so much for joining us today, Louis!
Louis Kotzé
Thank you very much, Kimberly, for the opportunity to speak to you.
Kimberly White
Alright, and there you have it. Currently, international environmental law is not equipped to handle the ongoing social-ecological crisis. Environmental law and governance remain predominantly state-centered, depending on the state as its central source of legitimacy and authority. Earth System Law recognizes the need for a holistic, common approach to the challenges facing our global community. The common heritage concept and the Common Home of Humanity initiative can be the new legal paradigm to keep the earth system intact, protect its integrity, and ensure planetary justice for our common future. That is all for today, and thank you for joining us for this episode of Common Home Conversations Beyond UN75. Please subscribe, share, and be sure to tune in on March 24th to continue the conversation with our special guest, Princess Esméralda of Belgium, journalist, documentary‐maker, environmental activist, and President of the King Leopold III Fund for Nature Exploration and Conservation. And visit us at www.ThePlanetaryPress.com for more episodes and the latest news in sustainability, climate change, and the environment.
Interview Transcript
Transcribed by Otter AI
Kimberly White
Hello and welcome to Common Home Conversations. Today we're joined by Maria Antonia Tigre, Director of Latin America for the Global Network for the Study of Human Rights and the Environment. Thank you for joining us today!
Maria Antonia Tigre
Thank you. Thank you for having me.
Kimberly White
So Maria, can you tell us about the Global Network for the Study of Human Rights and the Environment and the work you do there?
Maria Antonia Tigre
Absolutely. So the Global Network for the Study of Human Rights and the Environment, the GNHRE, is basically what it sounds like. It's a global network of academics, researchers, policymakers, lawyers and community activists that are particularly interested in this intersection of human rights in the environment. It started in 2018 as the brainchild of Anna Grear, who's an academic with the simple idea to bring people together who are working at this intersection. And the network recognizes the intersection of these two domains that human rights impact the environment and environmental quality impacts human rights. And so it nurtures a group of people who wanted to find more effective solutions than what had been done up until now. And because our core team has dedicated members divided by geographic regions, our growing network is particularly diverse. I'm the Director for Latin America and have as a result, the responsibility to engage with members who are based or focus their work on that particular region. This is done through webinars, through blog posts and an exchange of academic scholarship. We have a dedicated virtual research repository that contains over 2000 sources for research, which is by far the most extensive dedicated research portal on human rights and the environment available. And we are constantly updating it so it reflects the most recent scholarship on the team and particularly through research from those different regions of the world that are not always as focused in academia. So we also have a blog that provides commentaries on recent legal innovations, such as court decisions that have recognized the right to a healthy environment in some particular way. And since 2020 was the year of zoom meetings and webinars, we have developed a series of webinars focused on human rights-based climate litigation, which was our biggest programming initiative so far. We had an introductory webinar that provided a broad overview of human rights-based climate litigation, and then subsequent webinars that each focused on a specific region. The webinars had a very interesting mix of advocates, scholars, and lawyers, some of which were actually litigating the claims that we were talking about, which was a really interesting perspective to look from. And we had the privilege to hear from, in our webinar on focus on Latin America, we heard from Soledad García Muñoz who is the first Special Rapporteur on Economic, Social, Cultural and Environmental Rights at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. And we got from her the broad perspective on how to recognize climate change and develop climate litigation at the inter-American system. This broad network that we have has allowed us to get a worldwide conversation on climate litigation, it goes well beyond the discussions that we have seen so far, with the truly incredible quality of interventions of very thoughtful people trying to figure out how to protect human rights and environmental rights. We have several projects planned for 2021 that focus on advancing the development of this right and forge new conversations and relationships among our members.
Kimberly White
That's fantastic. I'm looking forward to checking all of that out, especially the research repository. I think that sounds very interesting. So 2020 was a challenging year, with the pandemic and lock-downs and everything that went along with that. What are some of the highlights for human rights and the environment that stood out to you recently that we should know about?
Maria Antonia Tigre
I think so. I think there have been several cases in Latin America that have advanced climate litigation through a human rights-based approach and also focused on the pandemic, specifically. I think what's interesting about the COVID-19 pandemic is that it has truly sort of spread throughout all crevices of society. And, of course, it's primarily a health crisis with devastating consequences on the human right to life and the human right to health but the urgent and all encompassing nature of the pandemic’s effect has complicated other environmental and human rights challenges in unpredictable and unprecedented ways. And given the origin of the Coronavirus as a zoonotic disease, meaning that it was transmitted from animals to humans, the exploitation of wild species and deforestation becomes a central aspect in addressing the pandemic and preventing future ones. So I think the right to a healthy environment has really developed sort of, within that whole context is sort of a response to the pandemic as well. And in fact, I'm actually coordinating a working group at the Global Pandemic Network, which developed sort of as of response from a series of academics all over the world to the pandemic, with this idea of responding to what we're living and trying to understand it from a legal perspective and trying to find better responses to react to it and as we sort of move towards this next phase, but also preventing future ones. And this group that I'm coordinating focuses on how the right to a healthy environment and other sort of green rights have been infringed by the pandemic. And one of the aspects that we look at is precisely this increased and modified interface between people and wildlife, which leads to the spillover of diseases from wildlife to people. And from a legal perspective, we are asking how the right to a healthy environment as well as these other related rights, such as the right to water, the right to food, the rights of indigenous peoples, play a part in that discussion. So I think there's an increased call for this international recognition of the right to a healthy environment because of the pandemic.
Kimberly White
Yeah, unfortunately, it has been challenging, and you know, again, it is all interconnected. That brings me to my next question, and we can dive in a little bit further with COVID. So the climate crisis and the concurrent COVID-19 pandemic seemed to show us a connection between environmental degradation, health, and human rights. How would the Global Pact for the Environment bolster human rights while bringing about international accountability?
Maria Antonia Tigre
So I think a lot of the studies that we've seen from the pandemic and the underlying causes of it, they show that these causes are the same global environmental changes that drive biodiversity loss and climate change, including issues like land use change, agricultural expansion in wildlife trade and consumption. So the role of a deteriorating environment both as a cause and a consequence of the pandemic is very significant here because it raises, like I said, the demand for international recognition of a right to a healthy environment, and this recognition is crucial given the link between the rights of health and environmental protection, which was evidenced by the pandemic and the recognition at the international level would provide for increased accountability and ensure that environmental protection is observed as a human right throughout the world. And this is also important as we see backsliding in environmental regulation as a result of the pandemic or using the pandemic as an excuse as has been observed, for example, in Brazil and in the United States. And this is where the Global Pact for the Environment can be particularly useful because it provides a platform, an opportunity for the recognition of the right to a healthy environment at international level along with other environmental principles such as the principle of resilience and the principle of non regression, both of which would have been essential in avoiding this pandemic and future ones and also recovering from it. So despite COVID-19 having sort of stolen the debate at the international level, and sort of the attention that was supposed to have been focused on environmental issues. So for international discussions, I think there's an opportunity here to actually give a little more strength to some of the arguments that have been used for the Global Pact for the Environment to bolster these human rights and environmental rights.
Kimberly White
So the right to a healthy environment has been incorporated into more than 100 national constitutions. However, we have yet to see it realized in an internationally legally binding treaty. Why is this?
Maria Antonia Tigre
So I think that the right to a healthy environment is, as my colleague Erin Daly from GNHRE often says, it's a story that is still being told. When the main international treaties and human rights were adopted, the relevance of the natural environment to the enjoyment of human rights was not yet recognized. For this reason, the right to a healthy environment was not adopted in these main human rights documents. And as the environmental movements took over in the 1960s and ‘70s, it was already too late. And I say that, sort of, in quotes, to recognize the human rights to a healthy environment at the international level. And the rights then developed simultaneously throughout the world through constitutional recognition, like you mentioned, and in academic scholarship. And with this broad constitutional recognition, the growing movement to recognize the right at the international level increased, and there have been calls to do so in different ways throughout the last, like two decades or so. And several proposals have been presented at the United Nations and more recently, as well, and that includes the Global Pact for the Environment. But the issue I think is that during the international debate that arose from the proposed Global Pact at the United Nations, the discussions that underwent at UNEP’s headquarters, a lot of countries were for that recognition, but a few countries explicitly rejected this international recognition. And that includes the United States, which is one of the few countries that has not adopted a right at the national level. And, of course, the United States carries a lot of weight in those in those discussions, and we now have a different government coming in. So this scenario could likely change. But many of the countries that still oppose international recognition do so due to national self-interests and the avoidance of environmental responsibility at the international level. And while innovative approaches have been proposed to fill this gap in international environmental law, including, for example, the adoption of a children's rights to a healthy environment by the Human Rights Council last year, it is likely that this debate about environmental rights and duties will mark the next decades of deliberations at the United Nations. Hopefully, it won't be too long until we actually have an adoption. But there's a lot of friction between delegates on whether that should be adopted or not.
Kimberly White
Yeah, we see that with a lot of these treaties and agreements. There's always that one group that doesn't want to join on just yet. So hopefully, we'll see more action this year. And as we hit the decade of ambition, really get things moving. How could the legal framework proposed by the Common Home of Humanity address the existing legal gaps in international environmental law?
Maria Antonia Tigre
I think what's interesting about the approach proposed by the Common Home of Humanity is this recognition that the earth system is interconnected and, as a result, its governance should address the unity and indivisibility from a legal standpoint. As a unity everyone shares the responsibility for the protection of the environment. And while this has been acknowledged from a theoretical perspective, we still lack the legal mechanisms to make it a reality. As a result, developing countries still rely a lot on their sovereignty and the historical responsibility of developed countries as an excuse to continue polluting the environment. Yet the widespread destruction of the environment shows how we must go beyond some of the core concepts of the international environmental legal regime and ensure that a shared responsibility actually exists. So if you take the Amazon rainforest, for example, everyone knows that Amazonia has a crucial role for the global climate. And when the 2019 fires happened, there was an unprecedented, and very much warranted global outrage from countries. But there's still a legal gap on how to care for the ecosystem services that Amazonia provides since it remains a free resource that is available at a global scale. And protecting that resource has a price for Amazon countries, which is what the leaders of those countries usually rely on to sort of avoid responsibility for caring for it a little better. There are very few economic mechanisms that give Amazonia a value that is more than rhetorical. And as a Brazilian, I feel emboldened to speak about the Amazon rainforest in a way that others can't. So while it is heartening to see the world outraged by the Brazilian policies and the policies from other countries that share Amazonia as well that have led to increased rates of deforestation, unless the world also provides a legal solution that affords Amazonia and Amazon countries as a consequence with a real value, that outrage is meaningless. So the Common Home of Humanity uses the discussion ignited by the Global Pact as an opportunity to bring a new approach that would address this legal gap in an innovative way. And as the Global Pact developed from an academic proposal, it brought a lot of backlash from delegates at the United Nations in the way that it was proposed, which brought this opportunity to rethink some of the core concepts and bring innovative ideas to better frame the foundational aspects of international environmental law. So I think the more people that we have actually thinking about this and proposing innovative solutions, the better.
Kimberly White
And speaking of the Amazon, the 2019 Amazon fires made global headlines, but the 2020 fire season set new records. According to international NGOs, an area almost equivalent to the size of the United Kingdom burned across Brazil up until the end of September. Given your research and expertise, can you discuss the importance of regional cooperation among Amazonian countries to save this vital ecosystem?
Maria Antonia Tigre
Yeah, one of the unfortunate, unintended consequences of the global pandemic was the rise of forest fires and deforestation in the Amazon region. 2020 was supposed to be the year of the environment, and yet everyone got distracted by the chaos that overpowered all other debates. The pandemic gave leaders in the Amazon region a free pass to avoid enforcement of environmental law based on a couple of different arguments, but namely, that it was too risky for agents of environmental protection agencies to be in the field, and that the economy was suffering and increased deforestation and pollution was a way to boost the country's economy. So based on that, enforcement was completely reduced. As a result, deforestation and forest fires were increasing once again. It was also the case that the media did not pay as much attention to this issue as it did in 2019 as the news was so overwhelmed by the Coronavirus. And another aspect relates to the protection of indigenous groups, which was completely sidetracked during the pandemic as evidenced by the disproportionate numbers of virus transmissions and deaths in those communities. Several countries have ongoing litigation that calls on their national governments to provide a response that ensures environmental protection and their responsibility towards the global climate. Some specifically focused on the forest fires. But the forest fires, and more broadly, deforestation much like the pandemic involve elements of national, regional and international protective efforts as well as legal norms that expand across and beyond these categories. Amazonia represents one single unique ecosystem, which should be protected in its integrity rather than through different national approaches. And that still hasn't yet been done in an effective way. The global significance of the threats to Amazonia requires legal responses based on cooperation between and across countries. And given how Amazon countries were affected by the pandemic, it is essential that this cooperative response takes place in the region. At the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization, which is the regional scheme that developed in the past four decades as a result of cooperative efforts between the nine Amazon countries has yet to develop an overarching protective scheme that works throughout the region and involves all countries in a practical effort. As a response to the 2019 forest fires, regional leaders adopted the Leticia Pact, which is basically a declaration of intent, with this goal of providing a regional response to emergencies, such as the forest fires, but that has also yet to take shape in any concrete ways. So despite the significance of regional cooperation and the existing regional frameworks in practice, this cooperation still doesn't really exist.
Kimberly White
That's really interesting, and I think with the fires, the media did not pay as much attention as it did in the past and likely, as you said, because of the pandemic that's going on. Now, in his recent state of the planet address, the UN Secretary-General said that the state of the planet is broken and humanity is waging a war on nature. Despite the intensifying adverse impacts of climate change, climate policies have not yet risen to the challenge. How would the Global Pact for the Environment better address the environmental crises facing our global community?
Maria Antonia Tigre
One of the main gaps in international environmental law, which was highlighted by the Secretary-General in 2018, is the fragmentation of this regime. So rather than having a framework treaty that provides the core legal principles like the Human Rights regime, for example, international environmental law, developed through a sectoral approach. We have a biodiversity regime, a climate regime, a forest regime, etc. So the pandemic showed us, if that wasn't clear already, that the environment is all connected, which warrants a connected approach. And this is exactly what the Global Pact for the Environment would provide. A Global Pact would postulate the basis for legal answers to existing and emerging environmental problems, as well as a baseline when the international community fails to agree on a joint response. As the climate discussions show, international diplomacy can be often slow to respond to emerging problems, as there are so many different aspects that should be considered when negotiating those. So the Global Pact would particularly fill this gap, providing general answers when more specific ones are still lacking. It would also provide for more accountability from states for example. As we can see from several climate litigation cases that have spread throughout the globe in the past few years, the right to a healthy environment and other environmental principles provide the basis for increased accountability from states, even when those fail to accept more stringent policies. Hopefully, the discussions arising from the call from the United Nations General Assembly for a new political declaration will be progressive enough to deliver some of the legal responses that we need right now.
Kimberly White
Absolutely, and I think as we’re getting into 2021, we really need to amplify what we're doing, and we need to see those nations step up. Was there anything from the recent Climate Ambition Summit that stood out to you for human rights and the environment?
Maria Antonia Tigre
So I think, not specifically from the climate negotiations, but in general from the discussions that I've seen at the United Nations and specifically, this call from the new political declaration. What I think stood out to me is that COVID-19 even though is mentioned all the time and is obviously acknowledged by countries has yet to actually provide the boost in the discussion for environmental protection that I thought was warranted. So hopefully, we will see a little bit more of that as we see more reports and more sort of a push from different people around the world talking a little bit more about how the pandemic affects the environment. We can see a bigger push for this recognition of the human right to a healthy environment and how that relates to the pandemic as a whole and see a little bit more engagement from countries as a response to that because I think the pandemic has still been used mostly as an excuse to avoid more stringent commitments. But I think that's exactly where we shouldn't go. And the lessons that we need to learn from this are exactly the opposite, that we should be engaging more, and we should be accepting more responsibility. And we should be protecting the environment with more fervor in a way than we're doing so far. So hopefully, it will make countries engage a little bit more in the commitments that they're making.
Kimberly White
I agree 100 percent. Are there any countries or national policies that have, you know, stood out to you as an example for the international community to follow?
Maria Antonia Tigre
I think that European Union has been developing a green recovery that is a little more ambitious and considers how we should respond to this in a way that is environmentally safe and protective. So hopefully, we'll see a little bit more of that from other countries and, I think, as the United States, as there's a different government. Hopefully, we'll see more progressive responses as well from that and see a green recovery that is conscious of everything else that we are suffering.
Kimberly White
Definitely, with these calls for green recoveries, they need to be shifting toward the future rather than returning to business as usual. And as one of the world's largest emitters, I'm hopeful that we will see concrete plans moving forward from the United States. We've had a lot of rollbacks here over these past four years environmentally, so it will take a lot of work, but I am hopeful to see some climate action. And I think, you know, accountability is another thing we need to keep in mind. So what can we expect to see for the human rights and the environment movement in 2021? What should we be watching for?
Maria Antonia Tigre
I think you mentioned it perfectly well, the environmental cases, I think that's the way that we see the right to a healthy environment being developed a lot throughout the world as a whole. I think using the right to a healthy environment as the basis for environmental claims is the way to go and is the way that we can see this right being developed in a faster way and more effective way, in a sense. I think it's interesting to see this movement from courts all over the world, that are trying to be progressive and filling this gap in their national governance system, in pushing governments to actually do more to protect the environment and climate, more specifically. We have seen many cases throughout Latin America. Brazil has a bunch of new innovative cases that have been proposed as for all 2020, that we're likely going to see results in 2021. And in several other countries as well, they obviously use Brazil a lot as an example because I'm from that region. And I've been researching a lot how human rights-based climate litigation has been developing in Latin America as a whole. And it's a region that has shown a lot of progress in that regard. The Inter-American Court on Human Rights has also developed the right to a healthy environment in recent cases, they had an advisory opinion in 2017 and 2020 showed the first contentious case that actually developed that right. So I think it's very likely that we'll see more of that as it develops. So I'm excited to see this development of a green jurisprudence in courts all over the world.
Kimberly White
That's fantastic. I'm looking forward to seeing that as well. Before we go, is there anything else you'd like to share with our audience?
Maria Antonia Tigre
I think just to keep an eye out for more work from the Global Network for Human Rights and the Environment, I think we'll have some exciting things that we will announce in the coming weeks and also from the Global Pandemic Network. Like I mentioned before, we're developing this report on how environmental rights have been infringed by the pandemic with a lot of very specific examples from some different countries and proposals on how we could respond better to everything that has been going on. So there's a lot of exciting things that will come out of that work as well.
Kimberly White
All right, and there you have it. International environmental law has developed through a sectoral approach, leaving legal gaps. Widespread destruction of the environment shows we must go beyond some of the international environmental legal regime's core concepts. The pandemic shows us that all of the environment is connected, warranting a connected system. The Global Pact for the Environment would give us the opportunity to fill these legal gaps, ensuring that everyone shares the responsibility for the protection of the environment. That is all for today, and thank you for joining us for this episode of Common Home Conversations Beyond UN75. Please subscribe, share, and be sure to tune in on March 10th to continue the conversation with our special guest, Louis Kotzé, Research Professor of Law at North-West University. And visit us at www.ThePlanetaryPress.com for more episodes and the latest news in sustainability, climate change, and the environment.
Interview Transcript
Transcribed by Otter AI
Kimberly White
Hello and welcome to Common Home Conversations. Today we're joined by Katherine Richardson, Professor in Biological Oceanography and leader of the Sustainability Science Center at the University of Copenhagen, and one of the world's leading experts on climate change. Thank you so much for joining us today, Katherine.
Katherine Richardson
Well, thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be here.
Kimberly White
So you teach biological oceanography, and you're the leader of the Sustainability Science Center at the University of Copenhagen. You were also Chair of the Danish Commission on Climate Change Policy. Can you tell us more about these experiences and the focus of your current research?
Katherine Richardson
Yeah, well, first of all, you introduced me as being a biological oceanographer. And it's absolutely true. I got my PhD in biological oceanography, and universities are such that you then get professorships in whatever you have your PhD in. But although I still do research in biological oceanography, I really am much more, much more taken up with this idea of Earth System Science and have been contributing for the last 30 years or so to trying to understand the role of the ocean and the biological processes I look at in the ocean in a larger context than just the ocean. So I would say I'm more of an earth system expert on how do physics, biology, especially biology, chemistry, and people interact to make the conditions here on earth. So my experiences are very, I mean, I'm getting old, so I've had a lot of good experiences, and fortunately not very many bad experiences. The really rewarding experiences have been talking to people, either with different scientific backgrounds, or even with different kinds of policy backgrounds, and finding a common understanding and seeing where the interactions are between our fields, and our interests and how we can learn from looking at those interactions. So the focus of my current research is really understanding what causes differences in marine plankton ecosystems and how these differences may actually influence climate development on the planet as a whole. And I have a really, really exciting new project, which is what I really think is my first really truly Earth System Science project, in which we're taking sediment cores in the ocean sediments near Iceland and bringing them up and analyzing them for ancient DNA. So we can describe not just what fossilized organisms we find in the course, which people have been doing for years. But with the help of ancient DNA, we can describe whole ecosystems and what they looked like. We're then also doing it on land in lakes so we can describe the climate changes that happened that we can also see in our sediment cores. How the climate changes that happened were transported to land via the ocean? How did the nature change there, because of the climate change, and also because people were there? And then we have some social scientists involved as well, who are looking at how people responded to these changes in the nature around them, so the indirect effects of climate change on human populations. So I'm using a lot of time and energy and not to speak of money on this project, which I find very, very exciting.
Kimberly White
That is fascinating. I'm looking forward to learning more about that and following along with your research as it goes on. So human development has grown exponentially since the mid 20th century, and so much so that the state of the planet that can support contemporary human societies is now being destabilized. You are one of the renowned scientists that developed the planetary boundaries framework. Can you tell us more about this framework and how it can benefit sustainable development?
Katherine Richardson
Oh, yes, absolutely. We all know that in the Brundtland report in 1987, this was a great step forward because people began to think of sustainability as not only being economic sustainability but that there needed to be an environmental and a social component as well. Unfortunately, in 1987, they couldn't really define what the environmental component was all about. We can do that today. And interestingly enough, I think we pretty much had the seeds to do that even in ‘87 because, in 1972, we got a picture of the Earth from space. We've all seen that picture. I've been told it's the most downloaded picture from the net, and it shows the earth alone out in space, and it shows clearly that there's no umbilical cord. And what that means is that the earth's resources must be limited. And we use those resources; those resources are what makes us rich. And the fact that there's no umbilical cord tells us that, once we've used the resources that are here, we're simply not going to get any more. So when politicians say that we're not going to let human-caused global warming be more than two degrees in comparison to the pre-industrial time, then they have set a limit, they've said, okay, we this is the size of the garbage dump that we can use in the atmosphere. And you can take two degrees, and you can translate it to the size of how much can we put out. We know exactly who's used the first half of the garbage dump, and the whole political exercise is about who should get the rights to use the last half of that resource. But we all know,this isn't only about climate. It's also about biodiversity. It's also about an ozone hole. It's also about water use. It's also about the felling of forests and the use of land. It's about pollution, contaminants, it's about particles in the atmosphere. So what we try and do with planetary boundaries is to for all of these important processes in the earth system, like the biosphere, the living component, the climate, the water, and so on, try and examine, with scientific-based evidence, try and examine what would be the limit in terms of if we didn't want to push this biodiversity or water or whatever we did, we didn't want to push it so far globally, that we risk changing the overall conditions on Earth, what's the safe operating space? What's the limit for how far we can actually push these different processes in the earth system. I actually regret we call it planetary boundaries because people tend to equate it then with tipping points or thresholds. That's not what it's all about. It's more like blood pressure. If your blood pressure is over 120 over 80, that's no guarantee you're going to have a heart attack, but it does raise the risk. So we put it down. And that's what we're saying about the way that we're pushing some of these important processes in the earth system. In order to be able to and the importance for planetary boundaries in something like policy development and sustainable development is that it helps us recognize the biophysical constraints within which we have to get, for example, our food production or our energy production to fit. So we talk about transforming the global food system, for example, and planetary boundaries can tell us that we need to transform it in such a way that we produce nutrient-rich food for nine to 10 billion people without using any more land by reducing the amount of water that we put into it by reducing the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus, and so on. So it tells us we need a green revolution on essentially the same land area that we have today. Fortunately, lots of scenarios are making it look like this will be possible if we push all of the buttons that we have available. But my point is that the value of the planetary boundaries framework or something like it is that it's absolutely essential for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and for defining the constraints within which we have to make critical human infrastructure and services fit.
Kimberly White
So, Earth System Science helps us understand that what we do anywhere and everywhere impacts our shared global commons. When we think of the ocean, it connects all of humanity, and ultimately, it operates as one interconnected system. Can you please explain some of the connections and interactions between the planetary boundaries, such as between the ocean and the earth system?
Katherine Richardson
Oh, yes. That's what I work on. That's what I love. Well, you know, the planetary boundaries identifies two core boundaries, and one is climate, which is only all about how much heat energy does the earth get from the sun? How much stays here? How does it move around? What is it get into contact with? So it's all about energy flux. The other that it identifies is the biosphere, that is to say, all living organ organisms, what we usually refer to is biodiversity. And we don't think about it very often, but what makes our planet special and different from every other planet that we know is that there is life. We don't know what life is, but we know what it does. And what it does is it transforms, and it transports elements and molecules. So at any point in time, in the earth system, the conditions that you have here are the product of the interaction between life and this energy that comes into the system. So why do we have oxygen in the atmosphere? Thank you very much, biology. Why do we have an ozone layer that protects us from UV radiation? Thank you very much, biology. So biology is incredibly important. And where did life start? Life started in the ocean, and those little organisms that made the oxygen that we got in our atmosphere, they came from the ocean. And in fact, the only place on this planet where you have enough free and active co2 to be able to explain the large differences that we're seeing in the concentration of co2 in the atmosphere between ice ages and non-ice ages that has to have come at least in large part from the ocean. And biology had a tremendous role in terms of moving carbon from, you know, land to ocean and from putting carbon from the ocean to the atmosphere. So the biosphere is incredibly important. Living organisms are incredibly important in terms of moving around co2. The ocean covers two-thirds of the planet over two-thirds of the planet, 71 percent, and life started in the ocean. Obviously, life in the ocean is incredibly important to the conditions that we have here on land.
Kimberly White
Absolutely. And in our past interview with Will Steffen, we learned that crossing these boundaries increases the risk of generating large scale, possibly irreversible environmental changes and that we may have already crossed some of these boundaries. In your opinion, which planetary boundaries have been crossed? And what are some of the consequences we could face?
Katherine Richardson
Well, I don't know that any of the boundaries have been crossed yet. But it is possible that some of them have been crossed. And the problem with tipping points is that you're not going to wake up one morning, and it'll be in the headline, okay, now, we crossed that tipping point, because very many of them will get to the point, for example, where it'll be so warm that you cannot stop the melting of ice on Greenland. But it'll take thousands of years before the ice is gone. So you don't really know for certain on the day when it actually happens that you crossed a tipping point. What we can say about tipping points is, we know for certain that they exist because we know there are elements, that can be the Amazon forest, it can be ice, Arctic sea ice, it can be ice on Greenland, it can be the West Antarctic ice sheet, it can be Alpine glaciers, it can be coral reefs, we know there are certain things on earth or components on earth that are either there or not there, depending on the temperature, depending on the climate conditions. So we know tipping elements exist. And we also know that it's temperature that gets them to go from one state to another. So we know tipping points exist. What we don't know is exactly at what temperature the tipping points become crossed. We can say, however, that when the IPCC, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, first began bringing tipping points to our attention in 2001. They said, well, we really expect that you'll have to have about a five-degree of centigrade increase before we need to worry about them. And by their next report in 2007, they said, well, maybe a three-degree increase would be enough. And by the time they got to 2013, they said, well, two degrees, and some of the reports that came out in 2019, said, Hmm, maybe in terms of the West Antarctic ice sheet, for example, we're already there. So we do also know for certain that the more we understand about the earth system and how it works, the greater the apparent risk is of us crossing tipping points at relatively low temperatures and temperatures that are very close to or maybe even where we are today. So I can't put my hand on my heart and say that we've crossed tipping points. But I can put my hand on my heart and say, for every incremental temperature increase, that happens, we come closer to crossing tipping points.
Kimberly White
Now, how can we prevent crossing some of these tipping points? What are some things that governments can do, and what can be done at the university or the organizational level?
Katherine Richardson
I think there are lots of things that can be done. The first thing, of course, is that we simply have to get our emissions down, and we have to get technologies to be able to take co2 out of the atmosphere. But the second is really a communication issue. I mean, we deal with the climate risk much differently than we do many other risks in our society. I don't remember having to have 100 percent agreement about the fact that everybody wanted to have airport security in order to ensure that terrorists don't find our most remote airports. And yet, society was unable to take the risk that a terrorist might find these very remote airports, and it's universal now that we have this security system. I'm not complaining about it. I'm just fascinated by the fact that society felt that it was necessary to react so aggressively to that kind of a threat, when the threat of climate change and the crossing of tipping points is so, so much, much more dangerous for society in the long run. So I think we need to have better communication in society, a discourse in society, about how we deal with risks. Fortunately, I do feel that this discussion is starting in lots of different circles, not least of which in the financial circles.
Kimberly White
Yeah, we've definitely seen an increase of the big banks starting to recognize that, to ensure their survival, they need to shift their investments. And that's been, I think, a positive change that's come out of the last couple of years.
Katherine Richardson
But it's not everywhere yet. There are if you look at, I just had a student who did a network analysis looking at impact investment and where it is that it's done, and for what purpose and it's primarily North America and Europe that do climate change impact investment, and really only in Europe, that you're seeing biodiversity impact assessment. So, so it's very interesting seeing where it evolves, and where it's evolving in Europe is where you have a very strong political discourse in those countries regarding biodiversity and climate, of course. So it's interesting, you know, we talk about the earth system, but you know, there we’re in a social system as well, where there are feedbacks between the government discourse and the societal discourse and the financial system and, and the science.
Kimberly White
Absolutely. And I think, you know, with Europe, we've been seeing a lot of positive climate action come forward and a lot more discussion, which has been really encouraging to see. And I think that's something we need to have a lot more of everywhere. And I'm really interested to learn more about that biodiversity impact fund that you were speaking of because I think so often with climate finance, we talk about climate, but we don't really talk about biodiversity. And that's something that's so important because, in addition to a climate crisis, we are in the midst of a massive crisis with biodiversity loss.
Katherine Richardson
Well, then you would be interested to know that in this very week that you know, the government of the United Kingdom in 2019 commissioned a report on the economics of biodiversity, and the report came this week. It's called the Dasgupta report. And it's very, very interesting, although depressing reading. And note as well that the report actually takes up the planetary boundaries and shows a figure of the planetary boundaries in it. So science gets into the economics reports as well.
Kimberly White
I had seen something about it right before our interview. It needs to be there. We really need to have science at the forefront of everything we do. Especially if we're going to make it through these converging crises we have with climate, biodiversity, and even the coronavirus pandemic.
Katherine Richardson
Right, which I think really shows a problem with resilience in our society that, you know, we knew perfectly well that there was going to come a pandemic at some point. And yet, we didn't really do anything to invest in making sure that our value chains were resilient, that we had enough layer capacity or storage capacity in our countries for critical medical equipment, and so on and so forth. Because it's too expensive to have facemasks lying around that you don't use. But maybe it's not that expensive after all.
Kimberly White
Exactly. And, you know, recent research has shown that more than 70 percent of the emerging infectious diseases that we see now are zoonotic in origin, which is all connected to, you know, our impact on the environment, our environmental degradation, human encroachment into these wild spaces. So it just continues to show how interconnected everything is and the impact that we can have, whether it be for the negative or the positive.
Katherine Richardson
The Lancet committee working on the COVID-19 epidemic reported to the last general assembly and, and on the very first page, it says, we simply need to protect biodiversity, we've got to stop cutting down forests. And that's a medical report. But the link to the way we treat the rest of the living biosphere and the zoonoses is pretty clear.
Kimberly White
Exactly at this point, it really should just be common sense for people to realize, you know, if we continue to destroy our natural resources, we're going to destroy ourselves. We're at this point where we really need to have this mindset shift. And I think we are starting to see it in a lot of places, but I think we need a continued momentous shift. And we can't just get distracted by the current pandemic going on. We need to make sure that to prevent future pandemics, we take into account the need to focus on all these other things that are, you know, coming down the line, which is with climate, with biodiversity, and with all of the impacts and cascading effects that those are going to have, which will compound what we're currently dealing with.
Katherine Richardson
I couldn't agree with you more. And I was fortunate enough to be chosen by Ban Ki-moon, along with 14 other people in 2016, to be responsible for the preparation of the quadrennial global sustainable development report that came out in 2019. And in that, we went in and looked at how's it going with the goals in the Sustainable Development Goals, and some of them the ones that have to do with people, at least before the COVID crisis, we were doing pretty well on in terms of infant mortality and neonatal mortality, and getting food to people and all that sort of stuff, we were doing actually pretty well. But there is a group of goals where the trend is in the wrong direction. It's negative, and that means that we get farther away from achieving those goals for every day that goes. And what are those goals? Well, it's inequality between people. It's, it's malnutrition, not because people aren't getting enough to eat but because we have an obesity epidemic, which has just gone wild. It's our material footprint, our ecological footprint, its climate, and its biodiversity. And you can say, well you know, it's going okay for people, why should we worry if it's going in the wrong direction for those other things. And in fact, it's the other things; it's the climate and the biodiversity, the natural resources that actually pay for the party. And we all know that you can continue partying, even though the balance on your bank account is going down. You just can't do it forever. And that's the situation that we've gotten ourselves into.
Kimberly White
I think that's a great analogy. So as an earth system scientist, can you explain why the earth system and its software are global, indivisible, and should be addressed as a single unit?
Katherine Richardson
Oh, yes, it's very easy. It's just like when you go to the doctor, and he or she is going to prescribe some medicine for your head, they will always make sure that it doesn't interact with something that's happening in your feet, or your stomach, or your reproductive system. So we recognize in our own bodies that it's the interaction between the different parts that make us what we are; it's just exactly the same way with the earth. The earth is also a system, and we won't understand it, by having a Department of Physics, Department of Chemistry, Department of Economics, Department of and everybody going in, and, and studying details in that box. And then we get all the details worked out, and we dump all of the details into a big pot and stir it up, we're not going to understand what the earth is or how the earth works. We have to be looking at the interactions between the different parts in order to be able to understand its function and our role in it.
Kimberly White
Absolutely. And how can recognizing the earth system as an intangible global common without borders, as proposed by the Common Home of Humanity, help us to better address the issues facing our global community?
Katherine Richardson
Well, the way I look at it, our ancestors, when they stopped their nomadic life and got a permanent address, they probably started out by dumping their waste products, wherever they were produced. And by taking whatever they thought they needed from nature, be it game to eat or trees to burn and get energy. And then they realized, hey, this isn't working, we're getting sick from polluted water, and we're running out of game, we have to make some rules, we have to manage our relationship with the local environment. And then we realized when we got to be even more people that it wasn't enough to do it locally. If we want clean air and water here in Denmark, where I live, we can't let the Poles and the Germans and you know, the Swedes throw all their rubbish in the air and water. So we made regional rules about how we manage our relationship to the world around us. What climate change and the biodiversity crisis, and even the corona crisis are showing us is we need to manage our relationship with the environment at the global level. Now we don't have a global government, which makes it a challenge, but it doesn't make it impossible. And we're in a phase now I think, where we are attempting different strategies for developing governance tools that can be used in order to be able to do this management or to set up guidelines with this management.
Kimberly White
Definitely, I think, you know, with the intangible global common without borders concept that's been proposed by the Common Home of Humanity. It goes to show, with climate change, for example, climate change does not recognize any borders. So it's really important that we recognize the earth system and the global commons as something that connects all of us. We're all part of it.
Katherine Richardson
Yeah, absolutely. And in order to be able to manage this, we're going to have to make changes all the way through our society. And that includes in our understanding of governance and how we deal with the global commons.
Kimberly White
All right, and there you have it. We need a green revolution. The earth's resources are limited and we need to change how we deal with our global commons. Climate change, the biodiversity crisis, and the COVID-19 pandemic show us we need to manage our relationship with the environment at the global level. The planetary boundaries framework is essential in tackling some of our planet's greatest challenges and achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals. That is all for today, and thank you for joining us for this episode of Common Home Conversations Beyond UN75. Please subscribe, share, and be sure to tune in on February 24th to continue the conversation with our special guest, Maria Antonia Tigre, Director of Latin America for the Global Network for the Study of Human Rights and the Environment. And visit us at www.ThePlanetaryPress.com for more episodes and the latest news in sustainability, climate change, and the environment.
Interview Transcript
Transcribed by Otter AI
Kimberly White
Hello and welcome to Common Home Conversations. Today we are joined by Viriato Soromenho-Marques, Professor of Political Philosophy, Philosophy of Nature, and European Ideas at the University of Lisbon. Thank you for joining us today!
Viriato Soromenho-Marques
Thank you, Kimberly, for having me on this podcast.
Kimberly White
So, you teach political philosophy, philosophy and nature, and European ideas at the University of Lisbon; you were also one of the authors of the Portuguese strategy for sustainable development. Can you tell us more about these experiences?
Viriato Soromenho-Marques
Well, I think that probably the most important thing that I can tell you about my own experience is how I feel so overwhelmed looking back to the 70s, when I started to be deeply engaged with the environmental movement with NGOs, in Portugal, in Europe. I think that when I went back 40 years, almost 50 years, I am overwhelmed to see that we live now in a hotter, different planet. It's an amazing experience, and not in the positive sense, but it's overwhelming, as I said, because if we look to the state of our planet, not just in terms of climate change, but also in terms of biodiversity, and many other features of the environment, we understand that we are in a race, a race against time, a race between the problems that we are creating with our clumsy way of dwelling on this planet, and the severe difficulties that we are facing in order to solve the problems that we are creating. So what I have done until now, as a member of NGOs, as member of advisory bodies like the Portuguese Council on Environmental, the European Council on Environmental that reunites many organizations in different European countries, as a member of the high-level group on energy and climate change, on the way to COP 15. It was a group assembled around the President of the European Commission and also giving advice to some foundations like the Gulbenkian Foundation that recently awarded the Gulbenkian Prize for Humanity to Greta Thunberg. What I'm trying to do with my activities, basically, is to give a contribution, to try to cope with the problems that we are doing as a collective as humanity, because I think that we need public policies. But we need to overcome a very narrow understanding of what is at stake with the environment and climate crisis. If we think that this problem is a problem to be solved, just by governments and states and big corporations, I think we are wrong. Because at the root of this problem, we have the need for a profound shift transformation in our set of values in our vision of the world. And in order to do that, to perform that, I think that we need the contribution also of culture, of ethics, of religion. So we are all actors in this fight for the continuation of the survival of human civilization on earth. One of the insights that very soon, I tried to systematize in my writings was to define what is an environmental crisis? Let me clarify that. When I speak of climate change, I consider climate change, not as something that exists per se, but as a part, as a chapter as a dimension of environmental crisis. So looking at the environmental crisis, I think that we may identify five dimensions or five features, five characteristics that are completely unique. First, environmental crisis, with climate, of course, inside it is the only really planetary crisis there. There is no other thing with such scope. We may see that, for instance, climate change is basically or intensively felt on the extreme north and extreme south of our planet, in regions in which there is almost nobody living. So it's completely planetary; there are no sanctuaries. And secondly, it's an irreversibility and entropic crisis. We know that we have massive biodiversity extinction, and when a species disappears, it is forever. So it's irreversible. There is also a third dimension; it's the cumulative acceleration. We are indeed in a process of great deceleration, inside what is now called the Anthropocene. And what is happening, for instance, with the oceans, the ocean acidification is a good example of this speedy cumulative acceleration we are embarked on. And a fourth characteristic is there is a growing political and social unrest. We know that many conflicts now, inside countries and between countries, have also the mark, have also the sign of environmental crisis, probably the Arab Spring would never have happened without the climate change impact. And finally, something that probably will speak later in our conversation, we are creating a kind of what I call the ontological debt between generations. So we are transmitting to the coming generations to adapt, not in terms of money or capital, but adapt in terms of the harm we are doing, to the planet, to the software of the planet, to the biosphere, to the atmosphere, to the hydrosphere. So we are jeopardizing the planet. And so we are transmitting a kind of ontological debt to be paid by the coming generations.
Kimberly White
Now, that's really interesting and diving back further into some of these challenges of the environmental crisis that we're currently in; in the book Security at a Crossroad-New Tools for New Challenges, you highlight the seven categories of human security. Can you elaborate on these? And in your view, what are some of the challenges climate change poses to human security?
Viriato Soromenho-Marques
Yeah, with pleasure. Well, when we speak normally about security, we think immediately in terms of strategy in terms of military security, military balance. That's our own conception. It's an old one. In the past 200 years ago, 100 years ago, it was logical to think in that way, today it is completely not just out of fashion, but completely wrong. Indeed, we had in 1994, the United Nations Development Programme in a report that was published that year ‘94, advanced with a more comprehensive concept of human security, trying to look to security, also, and basically, from the perspective of the individual, of the person of ourselves. So what do we as citizens of our countries, as citizens of the world, what are, for us, the main dimensions and features of security? And the seven categories that you mentioned are part of that vision of transforming the paradigm of security. They are basically the following. So economic security, that's completely important in a world that has grown to have more jobless people on account of the pandemic situation. Economic Security is also a key dimension, food security, health security, other two very important dimensions and environmental security. Well, I would say that environmental security is heretical because it entails also those that I mentioned, personal security to be as an individual, to feel safe no matter your race, your sexual orientation, your net level of material wealth, community security, to live in a safe community and political security. I think those seven dimensions, as I mentioned in the chapter you mentioned, are, in my opinion, very connected with the big contribution of one probably the most famous of the most important American presidents ever. I mean, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that in the famous speech of the State of the Union, 1941, spoke about the need to have, at a global level, not just at the level of the United States, at global level, four freedoms. Those four freedoms, as probably many of our listeners know by heart, are freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion, in the words of Roosevelt, freedom of every person to worship God, freedom from want, freedom from want means that we are secure in terms of our access to material wealth, so we have access to food, we have a job. So it has to do with the economic realm. And finally, freedom from fear, meaning that we live in a safe world, that a world that is not going to be disturbed by invasions by warfare. I think that the table proposed in 1994 by UNEP is very harmonic, it's harmonious. It goes in the roots of the proposal of President Roosevelt in the way that it is intended, not for a particular community, a particular specific country, but is intended for the world as a whole, using the expression of Roosevelt everywhere in the world. So the idea to have an international system, not just international law, but an international system that is able to assure the implementation of those dimensions of security. And of course, if we look to climate change, if we look to the environmental crisis, what do we see? We see that all those dimensions are in peril, are jeopardized, are in danger. Let me give you an example. I was shocked. This summer, I was working in September, and suddenly I realized that the big fires in the American West, namely in the state of Oregon, a very beautiful state that I already traveled to some years ago, Oregon is a state with a few more or less 5 million inhabitants. And I was told that 500,000 Americans, inhabitants of the state of Oregon, were on the move running from the huge fires that were crossing the states. Many other states, but the state of Oregon was very hit by the big fires. Those big fires started historically speaking, starting in December of 2017. In Portugal, we had two major big fires, one of them in October 2017 was one of the most severe and damaging recorded in history. And those fires add the direct connection with climate change. So, we are not speaking about a matter of natural sciences; we are speaking about the way in which we can cope, in our society, in the way in which we can look forward into the future. That is the question is about the future. The question is about security. The question is about the continuation of our life on earth. We have to shift dramatically the way in which we are inhabiting the earth. Our way of dwelling on the earth must profoundly shift.
Kimberly White
Absolutely, and I know that there are many who view climate change as a threat multiplier, as it can potentially exacerbate many of the current challenges and threats that members of our global community are facing, such as food insecurity and infectious diseases. The former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon had stated that climate change would not only exacerbate these existing threats to peace and security, but climate change is also itself a threat to peace and security. So it's kind of a driver of both things. And as we see, these cascading effects of climate change continue to impact our natural resources. It will continue to drive and amplify conflict. And we've seen this begin to happen in some developing nations that have had a lessened capacity for climate change adaptation, for sure.
Viriato Soromenho-Marques
Yeah, for sure. When we look to the tipping points that you mentioned, and Ban Ki-Moon also referred when he was United Nations General-Secretary, we need not just limit the tipping points to certain areas to the borders of developing countries, because even in European countries, like Portugal, in very developed countries, in the leading countries, like the United States, we are facing the consequences of climate change. The big fires in Australia, in Sweden, in Russia are examples of those cascading effects. And, of course, we are seeing the tipping points in the Arctic, in the coral reef in Australia, but probably and I'm not the first one to say or to say that probably even the Coronavirus crisis we are facing now has to do with the extinction and the loss of biodiversity. So, we are invading as a species the habitats of many other species. So we are breaking the borders between our species and other animal species on earth. We are cutting the self-defense mechanisms between our species and probably what happened, and not just with COVID-19, but with other illnesses that appeared also in the zoonotic process. So the transmission of biological material, in this case of a virus, from animals to humanity is probably the result of a tipping point in biodiversity. So that's not a very bold thesis. If we look into the literature of the specialty, probably you will find many other authors and specialists that will tell you the same. So we need indeed to consider that climate change is part of a global crisis. That's the major environmental crisis. And we need to find a new international system because today we are completely adrift. I would say that in terms of international law and in terms of an international system, we are probably in the 19th century. As we know we have to measure steps forward in the international system. The first one was President Wilson's idea of creating the League of Nations. And the second one was the creation by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and many others of the United Nations, but today, the United Nations is a pale image of what it was 45 to 50 is a pale image of the need we have for a strong, active international organization. And, of course, of course, I'm not blaming the current General Secretary of the United Nations because it's not a matter to be blamed for a personality; it's a matter of organization, of involvement of countries. Above all, it's a matter of the big countries, the United States, China, the European Union, India, Russia. So those big acting countries need to go back to the original spirit of the charter of nations and need to cross that spirit with the new challenges we have. Because today the world, it is much more dangerous than in ‘45. Because we have existential problems, climate change, global environmental crisis, the risk of nuclear war, there was already in 1945, but today it is bigger. We also have the problem of the economic system. We are now very fragile because we are exposed as humanity. We are very much exposed to cyclical finance and economic crisis because we failed in the building of a system able to control the finance and economic flows. Contrary to the hopes of President Roosevelt, Roosevelt considered the need to have an economic order, he even considered the need relative to Congress, saying that we need to have an economic Bill of Rights. So it's interesting many, many people in Europe don't know that President Roosevelt considered that one of the tasks for the future of the United States was to have a second bill of rights of economic dimension. So the environmental crisis can't be separated from the economic crisis because it's the economic structure, the economic fabric of the world. It's the key driver of the planet of humanity today. If we don't shift the economic fabric, we will not be able to tackle the environmental and climate crisis.
Kimberly White
Absolutely, and we can no longer look at climate change as an issue that might affect us down the road. It's a very real and current ongoing threat. And going back to what you were saying about the current pandemic, it has been said by many experts that this is the result of environmental degradation and human encroachment into natural spaces and not just with COVID, as you said. For example, the wildlife trade has been linked to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, as well as several other major pandemics and epidemics throughout the years, including MERS SARS and Ebola and also the transmission of pathogens such as bird flu and swine flu.
Viriato Soromenho-Marques
According to the World Medical Organization, 75 percent of the new diseases that appeared in the last 40 years are zoonotic diseases. So, diseases that are based on the transmission of biological material from other species to human species. The linkage, the connection, probably the causal connection between biodiversity loss and these new diseases, seems to me very, very strong.
Kimberly White
Definitely, it's a concerning statistic and it should be a wake-up call that we really need to be respectful of these natural environments and these ecosystems that we share on our planet. Now, diving into my next question, you have said we need to abide by the moral and political imperative of fighting against climate change if we want to be fair toward our children and grandchildren. Do we have a moral obligation to work toward intergenerational equity, safeguarding future generations, and helping to ensure a stable climate? How can the Global Pact for the Environment and the framework proposed by the Common Home of Humanity help us to achieve this?
Viriato Soromenho-Marques
Very, very important question, Kimberly. Well, let me start with the first question, a more philosophical question. Do we have obligations towards the coming generations? Are there duties between generations? I think that it's a very important philosophical and ethical question. And in my opinion, the debate is typically a debate that could be possible only in very, let's say, refined, sophisticated civilizations. So the debate in the West about that started, again, between, to major American politicians. The first time ever that the question of justice between generations was raised was in 1789. We can find that in the exchange of letters between Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Thomas Jefferson was in 1789 in Paris. He had been for five years Ambassador, minister, as was the term used in the 18th-century Minister of the new United States in Paris. And he was almost coming back, it was in September, so 89. And he wrote to James Madison in the United States, saying, I want to discuss with you a new problem, the problem of our duties regarding the next generation. So it's amazing how strong and how useful for the debate of today the discussion between Madison and Jefferson is. They discussed two topics, the topic of public debt and the topic of the revision of the Constitution. So basically, the thesis of Jefferson was that a generation should not force or connect the next generation, the coming generation, neither to a big burden of monetary debt, public debt nor to a constitution that could not be revised. Jefferson was not very glad he was not in the Philadelphia convention because he was in Paris. But he was exchanging opinions by mail with Madison and others. And he was not glad with the solution. For the revision that was found by the drafters of the Federal American Constitution, he preferred a more stable mechanism of revision every 19 years. So he was trying to say that we as a generation must leave the way open for the next generation. And I'm quoting now what I think can be considered the principle of Jefferson, that is, and I'm quoting, "The earth belongs in usufruct to the living" It is very clear. Jefferson was saying that we are not owners of the earth. We are just using it during our lifespan of generations. And we have the duty to give back, to transmit the earth in good conditions to the next generation. We don't have absolute autonomy. We need to care also in the way in which we behave on earth to care for the interests of the coming generation. So we can say that, in this line of Jefferson, we have the duty of maintaining and, if possible, promoting the earth's integrity for the next generations. And we are not doing that. So that's why, and I am now going to the second part of your question, as we know, the United Nations is involved in the process of creating a Global Pact for the Environment that will be proclaimed in 2022. Fifty years after the first big conference of Stockholm, the first big United Nations Conference in Stockholm, and also 50 years after the creation of the United Nations Environmental Program. And, well, Common Home of Humanity is trying to not just to support that effort from the United Nations, but we are trying to increase the intensity of the change. And that's why we are proposing the need to integrate into that Global Pact for the Environment the idea of a Safe Operating Space Treaty, a kind of a global convention that is directed to give legal status to a very important scientific concept that was created well, let's say in the last 50 years by our scientists, and that concept is the concept of the earth system, as we know when we have the concept of the earth system in science, but the earth system is not just a concept. It's a concept that reflects reality. And that reality is the living unity of the earth. It's the fact that our planet is our planet, not because it is one of the rocky planets in the solar system. We have other rocky planets; we have Mars, we have Venus, we have Mercury. But the earth system, this planet, is the only planet that, besides the rocky surface, we have something mysterious that is responsible for life. We have a kind of software, a living software. And that software is responsible for the fact that we are the only known planet with intelligent life, not just in our solar system, but at least in our galaxy. And that's a big responsibility we have. So, our effort, as a group of citizens from different countries, is to participate in the debate of the United Nations for the Global Pact for the Environment. And to add to that, they need to give us a step forward and to create an SOS treaty, SOS convention, safe operating space convention, in which the international community, the international law, and the international system will find a new way of inhabiting our earth based on cooperation, compensated cooperation, based not in in the current negative-sum game we are embarked, in which we are decreasing every day, we are decreasing the natural capital, we are decreasing the capacity of the earth to support life. But on the contrary, we should create that convention that will give a legal status that is going to allow for individual states but also for other big international actors. And we know that we have companies, corporations that are also big international actors to have a kind of earth's accountability in which we can, in a very rigorous way, in a very independent way, neutral way, we can do the accounting of the externalities, and we can give a reward for countries and corporations for the positive externalities they introduce into the earth system. And of course, we need to have some kind of penalty for the negative externalities international actors are introducing into the planet. So, in a nutshell, that's basically what we are intending to do, within the process, the United Nations process of creating the Global Pact for the Environment.
Kimberly White
That's really great. I feel like historically nations have focused more on the creation, or attempted creation of intragenerational equity in terms of development, focusing only on the current generations rather than the future. I think this is something, and I feel it is apparent with the continued propping up of the fossil fuel industry, where we're giving trillions of dollars in subsidies, which is just compounding the issues from the climate crisis. And that's why I feel that initiatives, like the proposal from the Common Home of Humanity, are so critical to what we need to do to move forward and to safeguard those future generations.
Viriato Soromenho-Marques
I agree. I agree entirely. And, well, there is also a big, transformative dimension in this idea in this proposal, and the dialogue with members of diplomatic bodies, and members of the media, politicians, it is very interesting because we can do nothing without sharing values, without learning with others. And I think that the shift from the current pattern of negotiation, diplomatic negotiation, that is basically the burden-sharing model, it's, for me, vital. So the idea that we are discussing quotas, limits for emissions, it's so poor, and it's so wrong because we need to bring to the table of negotiations much more than that. We need to create a diplomatic paradigm that is able to go from a zero-sum game in which I win what you lose, you win what I lose, to a win-win diplomacy, to a positive-sum game. And in order to do that, I think that the SOS treaty, the existence of a convention, giving a legal status to the earth system will give a concrete material shape to an idea that was created by my dear colleague and friend Paulo Magalhaes, that Kimberly, you know him as well. And in 2002, Paulo Magalhaes talked to me about the idea of the earth condominium. And it is now a very known worldwide idea the earth condominium, and basically, the earth condominium could be the prototype for the new brand or the new model of negotiation. Because when we have a home condominium, for instance, a condominium of our of the place in where we live with our family, we know that we have two types of property, we have the property of our flats, of our house, but we have also the common property of the common spaces and functions, the electric system, elevators, many other systems that are integrated into the compound of the condominium are also co-owned by each one of the members of that condominium. So, the same should happen in the international system. We are not saying to states that national sovereignty is going to end; no, that would be false. What we are saying is that if we keep completely connected to the old, we'd almost four centuries model of state sovereignty, we are going to lose everything, including the state sovereignty; it's what is called the sovereignty paradox. We can't tackle climate change, environmental crisis, financial crisis alone. You can't tackle pandemics alone. See what happened in Europe the pandemic was first faced in a very competitive way. But now, just after the cooperation between European countries, now, we have the hope of overcoming the pandemic situation, although the situation as you know, is now very bad. So, our proposal tries to combine two types of sovereignty. The first one is the classic sovereignty. So the territorial sovereignty of states, you are going to need that sovereignty for instance, many functions of state, you need to have national control to control borders, for instance, the control of international trade and so on, in certain conditions must be developed by the national state. But if we speak about the atmosphere, if we speak about water, both the ocean water or the river, the Continental waters, if we speak about the management of biodiversity, the protection of forests, we are speaking about the common software, the common heritage, using the category of Arvid Pardo. And so, in that case, we can’t divide the management, we can’t say we are the owners of this part of the atmosphere, we can’t say we are the owners of this part of the ocean. No, we are not the owners. As countries, we will exercise a court sovereignty, so a sovereignty of cooperation without other entities without the other states. So, it's a good example of what I called compulsory cooperation. If we are really intending to overcome the climate crisis, the environmental crisis, we need to work together, that's compulsory cooperation, we need to act together even with countries to which we have many other points of disagreement. But there is no atmosphere for China and for the United States; we have just the world, the earth's atmosphere. So we need to translate that in political language, in law language.But I think that it's not very complex, from the point of view of earth sciences. And with all the tools we have now, the capacity of data analysis we have, I think it's a very strong argument. The demonstration of the reality of these physical and geophysical and biogeophysical and chemical situations is very strong in terms of demonstration. And we need to jump from the field of sciences to the field of the real world of citizen engagement, of political engagement, of states, to the field of international law, and international diplomacy and international politics. I think that that's the task we have in the face of us.
Kimberly White
Absolutely, you make some really excellent points there. And I think you touched on this a little bit earlier, but I want to dive into it a little bit more, which is the current legal status of climate change as a common concern of humankind, that results in mitigating potential damages from climate change, and it was a dominant consideration for much of the UNFCCC's existence, creating a burden-sharing system. These mechanisms represent a negative-sum game where the stable climate resource continually decreases. How can recognizing climate as a common heritage be the legal innovation we need in climate negotiations after decades of underwhelming climate talks?
Viriato Soromenho-Marques
That's precisely the point I raised about the need to have the acknowledgment of the earth system, to give the earth system a legal status. And understanding that there is an object, although intangible, but no matter an object that needs legal protection, and that the legal protection of the earth system can't be done just by an institution, nor just by one state, or a corporation, but it's a common task of humankind, and human international system in the international community, just by that, we will be able to, indeed, overcome the obstacle of the low protection of the low status of climate change as a common concern. This is not a common concern. This is indeed a menace, a danger, or a threat to the common heritage of humankind because climate change is the result of the disarray of the flows of our way of life on our way of inhabiting the earth and of the way we are ill-managing the earth system. So, the only way to have a concrete strategy, a coordinated strategy, a long-run strategy of countries and other entities to face and to overcome, to mitigate and adapt to climate change is to understand that climate change is a symptom of environmental crisis. The environmental crisis is also a symptom of the bad shape and bad status and the disarray status in which the earth system now is passing. We need to combine and connect climate change with the need of restoring the earth system, and when I say restoring, I am saying that we need to shift also the economic fabric. Because now we have an economic fabric based on what we may call the entropic value today, the economic value is the value of entropic processes meaning when the norm of example, that we can easy to explain this, you have a forest, okay a forest is a very strong part of the earth system because it produces a set of natural surfaces very important namely, it is also a way of capturing co2. So, it is a good tool to fight climate change, but it is also very important to the water cycle, it's very important to the forest, to the biodiversity. However, in economic value, the forest only gains economic value, when it's destroyed. Look to all these happening crises in the Amazon forest and the big Amazon forest. Huge natural areas still pristine in many regions are being destroyed. Why? Because there are actors interested in making narrow, rapid economic value from something that is so, so rich, so powerful, and so over lasting.So we need within this effort to have a legal status for the earth system. We need also not just to shift our diplomacy, our international system, but we need to shift our economic mindset. We need to give a price not to the destruction of natural resources, not to the destruction of the earth system, but to give them a monetary reward for the preservation, for the protection, for the promotion, and for the restoring of the different areas of the earth system. Water, biodiversity, forests, landscapes, the beauty of pcapes is also a natural value.One of the things that keep us connected with our planet is the experience of beauty. The aesthetic values are also part of the reason why it's so important to be alive. And it's so, so, so fantastic, to be alive. We are not just destroying the life carrying capacity of our planet, but we are also destroying the beauty of the planet. And that's a shame. And we need to face that, with all the intelligence, imagination, and moral strengths that we can assemble.
Kimberly White
All right, and there you have it. We cannot tackle climate change, the environmental crisis, the financial crisis, or the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic alone. We need to act together, despite other points of disagreement. We are not the owners of the earth, we are just using it during our lifetime. We have an obligation to work toward intergenerational equity and promote the earth's integrity for future generations. That is all for today, and thank you for joining us for this episode of Common Home Conversations Beyond UN75. Please subscribe, share, and be sure to tune in on February 10th to continue the conversation with our special guest, Katherine Richardson, renowned climate change expert, Professor in Biological Oceanography, and leader of the Sustainability Science Centre at the University of Copenhagen. And visit us at www.ThePlanetaryPress.com for more episodes and the latest news in sustainability, climate change, and the environment.
Interview Transcript
Transcribed by Otter AI
Kimberly White
Hello and welcome to Common Home Conversations. Today we are joined by Ana Barreira, lawyer and Director and founding member of the International Institute for Law and the Environment (IIDMA). Thank you for joining us today!
Ana Barreira
Hello, how are you? Thank you.
Kimberly White
So you're the director and founding member of the International Institute for Law and the Environment. Can you tell us more about IIDMA and the work you do there?
Ana Barreira
Yes, of course. IIDMA was founded in 1996, it is already 24 years ago, with the purpose of contributing to sustainable development and environmental protection through the study, analysis, development, implementation, and enforcement of the law. Because the law is fundamental for organizing societies and those years in 1996, there was already a lot of environmental law. And we were focusing those years on environmental law. Since then, we have been working in many different areas, not only in sectors of the environment as water protection, marine protection, biodiversity, or climate change and energy transition but also on horizontal matters as governance. And we have worked a lot on party participation in the implementation of the Aarhus Convention, which is a convention on access to environmental information, public participation, and access to justice in environmental matters. It is known as an environmental democracy convention. But these years, now we have new science, and in 2009, the scientific community developed the framework for planetary boundaries. And if you realize all the work we have been doing, through law; we have been tackling all the planetary boundaries, or most of them because we have this science framework that we need the law to keep our activities and our lives within the planetary boundaries. And law helps a lot. And the work we have been doing in the last, I would say six years, has been concentrating a lot on climate change and energy transition, particularly in energy transition. What we saw is that the energy system, particularly the electricity generation system, was based mainly in Spain and in many European union member states on coal. And coal is one of the most polluting sources of energy from a climate change point of view; it generates a lot of co2. We started to implement this transition in Spain, advocating for the closure of coal power plants, we were using the rule of law tools, we were advocating, we were attending ADMs of energy companies, and we were discussing with energy companies. We were having conversations with authorities. We produced some studies on the impacts on health from the emissions of coal power plants, showing the externalities of the emissions of coal power plants and its cost on health. Like having data on premature deaths produced by this pollution, and all the economic impact that has like, for example, how many hospitalizations were necessary because of those emissions and how many lost working days happened in Spain. And also, we used our litigation. We started to go to court, to show and to challenge some of the permits granted to coal power plants. We saw that those permits were not in line with the legal framework we have at the European Union level. What has happened is that because of the work we have been developing in these last six years, at the end of June, more than half of the capacity of coal installed in Spain has closed and the rest of the capacity installed in Spain, it's going to close very soon. So we are having outcomes, positive outcomes, to reduce CO2 emissions from Spain through our work through using the tools that the rule of law offers to citizens.
Kimberly White
That's really interesting. I'd be keen to see the studies you have there because I know globally, air pollution from burning fossil fuels costs almost $3 trillion every year. And the premature deaths associated with that, the last time I checked, were 4 million premature deaths a year. And kudos to you and the team at IIDMA! That is quite an impressive feat.
Ana Barreira
In addition, in IIDMA, we are now following the process of all the European Green Deal. But in Spain, as part of this program we have on energy transition and climate change, in Spain, we still don't have a climate change law. There are many European Union countries that have their own climate change law, and even some other countries, for example, in Latin America, they are producing their own climate change laws. But in Spain, during COP21, in Paris, our president committed to start working on a climate change law, that was in 2015, but still, we don't have one. Now, there is a bill being discussed in the Spanish parliament; it is the climate change and energy transition law. And we have been advocating for a stronger law because it has some deficits in its governance; for example, a good climate change act has to be accompanied with a climate change committee, which is a scientific body, following the example of the IPCC. So many climate change laws, they have their own scientific body, which normally it's called climate change committee, for example, in the UK, in France, or in Denmark, including now, the EU where it is being discussed or it is under discussion, the future EU climate law, the European Parliament has added the need in its first reading of the need of having this kind of body. The Spanish law doesn’t contain that, so we have been advocating for that.
Kimberly White
So nature, the environment, and the earth system are, by definition, systemic and interdependent. The magnitude and immediacy of the looming climate catastrophe show the need to design and implement a global public policy, creating instruments and institutions that enable collective action. How can recognizing the earth system as a common heritage of humankind better articulate our responsibility to protect the integrity of the earth's ecological systems?
Ana Barreira
I think this is fundamental. Because as it has been said, in other of these podcasts series, the earth system is not legally recognized yet. And we need first, that recognition. And the best way is to be recognized as a common heritage of humankind, an intangible common heritage of humankind, and how this can articulate our responsibility to protect the integrity of the earth's ecological system. If we have that recognition, that will help to integrate the planetary boundaries system within the international legal system. We have a very well developed international legal framework for the protection of the environment, but it's framed in a very siloed manner; there is no interconnectivity. And as you are asking, we need to protect the integrity of the earth's ecological systems, and we are not doing that through the law. Because we have a lag, we don't have this definition at the International Law level of the earth system. So if it is considered as a common heritage of humankind, this is going to allow the international community to start joining the dots of all the legal frameworks we have, because we have a Convention on Biological Diversity, that until now, there has been not much cooperation with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. We have another convention, they are called the Rio conventions on the certification, so they have been working in a silo manner. So we need to do an integration of all the, and I'm just citing some of the multilateral environmental agreements we have, we have many that we need an overarching idea, ideally, in the legal system, which is the earth system. And as it has been said already, it is a common heritage of humankind. Because if we don't have the earth system protected and allow us to keep that human development within the Holocene conditions, we are in danger. And therefore, we won't have any future here. So that's why it's so important.
Kimberly White
So being a common concern is not enough.
Ana Barreira
So until now, climate change has been recognized as a common concern of humankind. And then this was for the first time, appearing in the language of the Rio conventions, because of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change acknowledged that change in the earth's climate and its adverse effects are a common concern of humankind, and also the Convention on Biological Diversity affirms that biological diversity is a common concern of humankind. But at the same time, it recognizes the sovereign rights of a state over their biological resources. So when we talk about common concerns of humankind principle, it's fine. I mean, because common concerns of humankind are those that are understood as those that inevitably transcend the boundaries of a single state and require collective action in response. And this framework provides a basis for protecting shared resources that are being threatened by a global problem. So it's focused on sharing the burden of solving a problem and implies common responsibility to a specific issue of concern, based on its importance, as a whole entailing and legal responsibility to each state to prevent damage to it. And in fact, this principle is linked to this principle seven of the Rio Declaration that was established and regards the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, but we must take into consideration although this is fine, it has not been enough. It has not been enough because we are under a climate emergency. So, there is something that is missing. There is something that we have to introduce amendments and to reinforce the legal system we have. So that's why recognizing the earth system as a common heritage of humankind will help. And why? Because this principle applies to areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. Some of the examples under international law are the seabed and the ocean floor, beyond national jurisdiction, and the moon and its resources. But we have to take into consideration that when we are proposing the common heritage of humankind, for the earth system, that we must go on a step farther in how it is functioning. Now, at the international level, this principle, because there are four essential elements defining this principle, like one, the area or resources under consideration cannot be subject to appropriation, and the elements of the earth system cannot be subject to appropriation. And at the same time, some of the components of the planetary boundaries are found within national boundaries. Another element of this principle of a common heritage of mankind means that all countries must cooperate as a commodity, area, or resource for the benefit of humankind. And we need an institutional framework for ruling this co-management. But of course, when we talk about co-management, it is not about exploiting the earth system. So that's why we have to accommodate and go a step farther, and we need to establish a regime under a treaty to protect the earth system to stay under a safe operating state. And also, the previous element that I mentioned, entails an active sharing of burdens as well as benefits derived from the protection and the use of the areas or resources. So, therefore, as it has been said already, that countries that are contributing positively, like, for example, we have the Amazon, and it provides benefits for all humankind. So this has to be recognized under the principle, and the principle of a common heritage of mankind will help to that. And, of course, another element of this principle is that the area or resource must be dedicated exclusively to peaceful purposes. And, of course, the earth system must be dedicated to maintaining a safe operating space for humankind, which is definitely a peaceful purpose. So, therefore, when we talk about common heritage of humankind, it's not that we want a seabed authority authorizing activities to exploit the seabed. It requires some accommodation to the reality of the earth system. But if we combine the common concern with the common heritage of humankind, I believe that we can be more successful than we have been until now.
Kimberly White
All sovereign states share global ecological commons. And we can now clearly define the interconnectedness of the earth's ecological systems, oceans, biodiversity, atmosphere, climate, etc. Yet, there is no mechanism of looking at international environmental law from an interconnected perspective. Can the Global Pact for the Environment be that needed mechanism to address this global legal gap?
Ana Barreira
Yes, definitely. Last year, at the UN level, within the UNEP, there were these discussions on the Global Pact for the Environment. And these discussions were an opportunity just to start thinking and stop thinking in a silo manner. In fact, this was something that was addressed by the UN Secretary-General in its report on gaps in international environmental law. That he pointed out that there is no integration at all, there is no interconnectivity among all the legally binding instruments we have. So, therefore, the Global Pact for the Environment represented an opportunity to include principles in it as the integrity and unity of the earth system. And in addition, it's an opportunity to declare, for the first time, the earth system as a common heritage of humankind. Now, as you know, these discussions are going to be under UNEA5, which due to the COVID-19, are in February 2021. It's going to be not in person, but it's going to be a meeting online. And the civil society, we are trying that considerations on the high-level declaration for Stockholm plus 50 takes into consideration the earth system as a common heritage of humankind and as an integrated and unique system. In fact, I must say that last year, Common Home of Humanity and IIDMA, the International Institute for law and the environment, we were attending all the negotiations for the Global Pact for the Environment. And we did several statements asking the government's there to recognize the introduction of the Global Pact for the Environment, these principles I mentioned. But I must also say that we lack these days, at some levels, some political leadership. I don't know what is going to happen in UNEA5; the discussions were not really very well last year. And I hope that because of what we are living, the humankind these days, because of the pandemic, the recent change, and there is some leadership, and in fact. I am confident that the EU has always been dawned in climate change negotiations and environmental negotiations take the leadership and an unhealed to bring the framework of planetary boundaries at the international level. And I said it requires recognition of the earth system as a common heritage of humankind, an introduction in the international legal system of a principle on the integrity and unity of the earth system.
Kimberly White
So what's the next step? What do you see as the challenges of reaching an internationally binding treaty like the Global Pact for the Environment? And do you feel that sovereign states can unify so that this proposal can become real?
Ana Barreira
So, sovereignty has been subject to certain limitations as a consequence of the gradual recognition of the interconnectivity among live resources and ecosystems. State sovereignty is a fundamental principle of international law. However, this term is often used in a political sense, with differing interpretations depending on context and intention. However, in order to protect our earth system, it is important to clarify the rights and obligations that this principle embodies. And it is paramount to clearly understand that the earth system is not under the sovereignty of any state, and they cannot appropriate it. At the same time, activities carried out under the jurisdiction of any state may positively or negatively impact the earth system. I would say that the notion of sovereignty is dynamic, evolving with the development of the global institutional environment. And today, sovereignty implies the limitation to respect the other sovereignty as well as the obligation to respect international law. And this requires collaboration within the international community, representing an obligation to cooperate, take into account the interests of others, and to contribute in good faith. But in addition, the scope of sovereignty has been limited through principles of international environmental law. The main elements of sovereignty and equality of estates are a jurisdiction over a territory and the permanent population living there, a duty of non-intervention in the area of exclusive jurisdiction of other states, and the dependence of obligations from customary law and treaties. And according to international law, each state has the competence to develop policies and laws in respect of the natural resources and the environment of their territory. Therefore, states have sovereign rights upon elements, elements which are part of the processes comprising the earth system and which are within the scope of the planetary boundaries.
In addition, there are certain areas that are outside the territorial scope of any state in which they cannot exercise or affirm their exclusive jurisdiction, and these are known as global commons. And these are the high seas and its seabed, the subsoil or outer space, the atmosphere, among others. And there is a problem because of all the lines dividing the territories our intention with the interdependency and interlinkages of the subsistence processes of the earth system. And we cannot deny that activities that are taking place in all these areas subject to jurisdiction of the states have an impact on the balance of the earth system, and this can put under pressure the planetary boundaries. But I want to emphasize again that international law has been evolving in certain limits to activities undertaken within the jurisdiction of a state with the purpose of avoiding impacts beyond their jurisdiction or within the jurisdiction of other states. And one example is the Trail Smelter case that derived from a dispute in the 40s of last century between the United States and Canada over the emissions of sulfur fumes from a smelter located in Canada, which caused damage in Washington State. And the arbitration tribunal found that under international law, no state has the right to use or permit the use of its territory, in such a manner as to cause injury by fumes in or to the territory of another, or property or persons during when the case is of serious consequence, and the injury is established by clear and convincing evidence. There are many other judgments, even from the International Court of Justice, that have been developing this finding by the arbitral tribunal. In many cases, like, for example, in the pulp mill case between Argentina and Uruguay, for example. And there are as I mentioned before, there are principles of international environmental law that limit the principle of sovereignty. And one of them is principle 21 of the 1972 Stockholm declaration that recognized the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources but limited the sovereignty of estates imposing a duty to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other states or areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. And this is also known as the no-harm principle, a Rio Declaration principle to also reproduce this principle, just with a small amendment. So, therefore, as a conclusion, I would say that in the second decade, now, we are about to enter in the third decade of the 21st century, this obligation that the states have to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other states, or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction must be interpreted as an obligation that requires not to put on the risk the earth system's stability, and therefore not to transgress or overpass the planetary boundaries.
Kimberly White
Exactly, because recognizing the earth system as a common heritage of humankind is the first step to restoring a stable climate.
Ana Barreira
Yeah, and I will say that climate change is one of the core planetary boundaries, but we need also to consider biodiversity. So, we have to consider both. I would say we need to consider all the planetary boundaries, and we have trespassed some of the planetary boundaries. And climate action is fundamental, but we need also to consider the protection of biodiversity because this is integrated. So everything is linked. And, we need to consider that we cannot just concentrate only on climate change, because as the science has told us, there might be cascading effects. So we need healthy biodiversity to have a healthy planet, and we need a stable climate for healthy biodiversity. So everything is interlinked.
Kimberly White
Absolutely. Everything is connected. So when we’re developing and implementing solutions and plans of action, it is imperative that this is taken into account. I think we will see a much higher success rate. So jumping into my next question, and I know we've mentioned the EU a couple of times at this point, but the EU has been at the forefront of climate action with its Green Deal, aiming to become the first Climate Neutral continent by 2050 at the latest. Given your extensive experience in international environmental law, can you share your thoughts on the European Green Deal?
Ana Barreira
The EU has always been a leader, front runner in fighting climate change. In fact, it was during the Kyoto Protocol negotiations. And, for example, when the Kyoto Protocol implementation time was extended, the EU committed to mitigate or reduce emissions by 2020 by 20 percent. And now, for example, in 2015, when countries have to send their NDCs, the European Union sends an NDC that committed to reduce emissions 40 percent by 2030. But because of the reports by the IPCC and the emissions gap reports by UNEP, we know that we are not on track, and we need a stronger commitment. And for example, as you know, recently, countries such as the UK have committed to reduce emissions 68 percent by 2030, just to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. But now the European Union is working, and this is a commitment in the Green Deal to increase the level of ambition in the NDC to at least 55 percent. This was presented last year, in December last year, when COP25 was taking place in Spain, here in Madrid. And now, this year, the EU, as part of the European Green Deal, committed to a lab to prepare an EU climate law. The European Commission published its proposal for a European Union law last March. Now, these laws have been under negotiation and as part of the EU legislative system or process. The European Parliament has pointed out that the commitment of a reduction of emissions by 2030 by 55 percent has to be increased to 60 percent. In fact, there is a European Council meeting, and they are going to analyze this. There has been the publication of scientific studies at the EU level that says that the EU has to increase its NDC by 65 percent. Let's see what happens. But there is a commitment. If you go through all the Green Deal to make and to achieve that, the European Union, all it's the economy; it's totally decarbonized by 2050, and that we achieve a net-zero emission that year to comply with article two of the Paris Agreement and just to contribute, at least to keep the temperature not to increase more than 1.5 degrees centigrade. So I think that this is really remarkable because if you go through the Green Deal, all this is going to be not only through climate policy, which is fundamental of course, but the EU are deploying new policies. It's reviewing all the systems we have for environmental protection, and it is as I said before, the Green Deal is striving that we live within the planetary boundaries because the Green Deal is not only about climate policy; it's about also biodiversity protection.
Also, we have a new circular economy strategy as part of the Green Deal. I can give you many more examples like, for example, there is a strategy on from farm to fork, which is linked also to the biodiversity strategy, as I mentioned, with the reduction of fertilizers, but also how the soil is used. And to introduce regenerative agriculture in Europe. So there are many of the planetary boundaries in this European Green Deal. And there are going to be reforms in all those directives that are not helping the introduction, and just to abolish all barriers for renewables.
Also, there are commitments, although these commitments are already very old, ending with perverse subsidies, and one of those perverse subsidies are subsidies on fossil fuels. I would say that, for example, this is one of the problems of what has happened at the international level, the international community that we have many commitments that have not been achieved, they haven't been complied with, like, for example, the Aichi commitments of the CBD. It has been clear that we are not achieving the commitments that were put on the table 10 years ago, in the Convention on Biological Diversity, but for example, the EU committed to end fossil fuel subsidies in 2010. In 2001, when it was preparing the road to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. So there have been many commitments that have not been achieved. And this is something that the Green Deal also points out that there has been a deficit in the implementation and enforcement of legislation. So we need to also reinforce the governance system because we need new legal instruments. Right, but we need also institutions that have enough resources to follow compliance and to ensure compliance. Of course, as we are seeing at the international level, in many countries, there are nowadays a lot of climate change cases and climate change litigation. And there are very good outcomes for those cases. But I always said as a lawyer that I don't want to go to court because if we go to court is because the damage is already done. And sometimes courts take years to give a decision. And we need stronger institutions that can follow that laws are correctly implemented, and also that companies, citizens, public administrations are more aware of the importance of respecting the laws and respecting the laws of the earth system. Because if not, we are really in a crisis, we are in a crisis, because we have already a very developed legal system that has not been complied with. And that's why now we need as we have more scientific knowledge, we need to integrate that scientific knowledge in our laws. But we have not much time. Therefore, that's why compliance and enforcement are key. And this is in the Green Deal, the European Commission commits and ask also member states to give enough resources to all the institutions in charge of implementing the laws to achieve the outcomes.
Kimberly White
Absolutely. And, you know, as we have been in the midst of this pandemic we’ve seen an increase of proposals for green recovery plans around the globe. Following the covid-19 pandemic, it’s really crucial that governments take this opportunity to build back better, not to return to business as usual. Now, the EU proposed a recovery plan that places the Green Deal at its core. In your opinion, what are the highlights of that proposal?
Ana Barreira
Okay, the European Union, it's now it's everything is almost concluded, all the negotiations for the multi-annual financial framework, which is the budget until 2027, and also their recovery and resilience facility. But it is amazing. I would say because the European Union is committing €672.5 billion for the recovery. And member states, in order to get access to those funds, need to make recovery and resilience plans that are going to be assessed by the European Commission. But it is remarkable that 37 percent of the amount of this recovery and resilience facility that the EU has established under what is called the EU next generation has to be committed to climate change and for biodiversity protection. So it is the first time I would say that there is this commitment just to overcome a crisis through protecting our planet and looking at the planetary boundaries. But at the same time, we need to just to have a focus on the conditionality because what we need to know is what is going to happen with the rest of the funds. But I would say that having the Green Deal, as it has been said by the Vice President of the European Union, is the growth strategy of the EU, at the core of the recovery plans and of the multiannual financial framework of the EU; it gives some sight of how it's going to be the future of the EU and how the EU can impact in other regions of the world and how the EU can impact as a model in their recovery plans that all the regions in the world are preparing now. So, therefore, I feel that these commitments are really essential and are fundamental.
Kimberly White
All right, and there you have it. The interconnections between the economy, social justice, environmental degradation, biodiversity loss, and the climate emergency are becoming more evident. We need healthy biodiversity to have a healthy planet, and we need a stable climate for healthy biodiversity. The Global Pact for the Environment represents an opportunity to integrate the principles of the integrity and unity of the earth system and, for the first time, declare the earth system as a common heritage of humankind. Recognizing the earth system as a common heritage of humankind is the first step to restoring a stable climate. That is all for today, and thank you for joining us for this episode of Common Home Conversations Beyond UN75. Please subscribe, share, and be sure to tune in on January 27th to continue the conversation with our special guest, Viriato Soromenho-Marques, Professor of Political Philosophy, Philosophy of Nature, and European Ideas at the University of Lisbon. And visit us at www.ThePlanetaryPress.com for more episodes and the latest news in sustainability, climate change, and the environment.
Interview Transcript
Transcribed by Otter AI
Kimberly White
Hello and welcome to Common Home Conversations. Today we are joined by Klaus Bosselmann, Director of the New Zealand Centre for Environmental Law at the University of Auckland. Thank you for joining us today!
Klaus Bosselmann
Thank you.
Kimberly White
So you've been the Director of the New Zealand Centre for Environmental Law since it began in 1999. Could you tell us more about NZCEL and your work there?
Klaus Bosselmann
Yes, the New Zealand Center for Environmental Law has its working model, working for sustainability. It's an interdisciplinary Institute involvingscientists, political scientists, sociologists, lawyers, all united in the pursuit of making sustainability a reality in the legal system. And what that means, of course, first of all, sustainability needs to be clearly defined. And that has shaped my work in the 1990s, as somebody who has joined the Rio Earth Summit where sustainable development was first negotiated. And in essence, what we do at the NZCEL is, we are finding practical ways how to implement sustainability at the various levels of law, domestically, internationally, and so forth. And we have done it, I think, quite successfully. So, let's just give you an example regarding New Zealand. New Zealand was the first country back in 1991 to incorporate the concept of sustainability into its leading environmental law called the Resource Management Act. And what it means there is that rephrasing someone, the purpose of this description of this act is to allow any sorts of activities within society and within an economic system, as long as the fundamental integrity of ecological systems are not affected. And this is a nice capture of what sustainability really means. It means the duty of states to protect and preserve the integrity of earth ecological systems. That was for the first time incorporated into the Rio Declaration, 1992. And so ever since we have been working on this, and we have done this, once internationally in the form ofbeing a founding research center, that formed the IUCN Academy of Environmental Law, which is really the global umbrella organization for all environmental law scholars and environmental law research centers. So that has been a very gratifying experience. We're working obviously, with research centers around the world, all in pursuit of basically transforming our current system of rather fragmented environment law. So that's what we are doing.
Kimberly White
That's really interesting. And New Zealand has been at the forefront,
leading globally with climate law and what you guys are doing, that's fantastic. You’re the Co-Chair of the Scientific Committee of the Common Home of Humanity. Now, one of the main innovations that CHH has brought for public and academic discussion was conceptualizing one global common without borders, the earth system. As a professor and expert in international environmental law, how do you see the concrete legal solution that goes beyond the soft law declarations?
Klaus Bosselmann
Yeah, the notion of a global common without borders is a real challenge to the existing system of international law. We are more familiar with global commons in plural, acknowledging areas outside national jurisdictions such as oceans, Antarctica, the atmosphere. The notion of global commons harbors a certain duty, a degree of moral duty in terms of stewardship or guardianship. It has further been expressed in the notion of common heritage of humankind, which acknowledges a shared responsibility for areas that are subject to common heritage. So there is a certain familiarity with the notion of global commons. And as such, it can be incrementally implemented in international law. Now, when it comes to singular, global common without borders, this is the real challenge. And, of course, it's a reflection of earth as a whole and a physical reality, a spiritual reality, and yet, the law has largely been ignorant of this phenomenon called earth or mother earth. The closest thing that lawyers tend to accept as a description of reality can probably be described as the earth condominium, right? The idea that sovereign states, they own little apartments in a huge condominium that they all share just a situation that we have you rent an apartment, or you even own an apartment. But you also have to take care of the overall house that, you know, your apartment only forms part off. And this image tells us that by virtue of being interested in protecting your own apartment dash country, you need to have followed the logic of wanting also a healthy apartment next door. And furthermore, the functioning of the entire building that your apartment sits in. So this stipulates the need or sort of articulates very nicely what states by virtue of being part in this complex system called planet earth are up to and what their responsibilities really are, they need to go past responsibilities that you have as neighbors, right sort of one state to the others, we need to have common responsibilities for the global common is this notion is, is articulating this. So this is the new challenge, and of course, has been expressed in some ways, some way or other, not necessarily in soft law declarations per se, but in a number of international documents. And of course, the discussion continues, and it is very exciting to see some developments in that area.
Kimberly White
Absolutely. So what exactly does this mean in terms of the history of international law?
Klaus Bosselmann
Yes, this is the heart of the matter is that international law is, of course, a legal construct, defining the relationships between sovereign states. So the assumption is that somehow the 189 or so current existing sovereign states can sort out all matters through this vehicle called, quote, international law. And this means they're using a notion of state sovereignty that has a certain history. In fact, it was created under the Westphalian peace treaty from 1648 and served the main purpose that states in Europe at the time ought to recognize each other's sovereignty in order to respect each other so that the citizens of one given country can be protected by their own government without fearing the threat of being attacked by people from a neighboring country. So historically, the concept of state sovereignty was all meant to provide a certain peace order, and that's all very well, even though, as you all know, hasn't very well functioned in practice, but nevertheless, the principle of state sovereignty has its absolute legitimacy. However, what do you do in a situation when these sovereign states discover a problem that cannot be dealt with with a pure notion of a sovereign state? This is a phenomenon that we all share the natural environment. The environment does not know any national boundaries. And in fact, we are talking about one global environment or the earth system. And this is what the idea of state sovereignty is not geared for is not invented for. We today speakof the sovereignty paradox, and this describes a situation that we are finding ourselves with a legal construct that is largely outdated because it does not inherently cater for shared responsibilities and, you know, enforceable responsibility of a sovereign state towards the global environment, yet, the well-being of each state and their citizens of course, it utterly depends on the so-called functioning of ecological systems, including climate change. So this kind of dichotomy between a rather restrictive and absolute concept of sovereign state, which does not know an inherent duty to protect the global environment on the one hand side, and the physical reality of a shared earth is that the crux of the matter and needs to be addressed, and it can be addressed in many ways. But this is, if you like the historical legacy that we are dealing with, the history of international law was mostly shaped by concerns for security and maintaining peace. But in more recent times, over the last 70 or so years, of course, we have this phenomenon of international human rights. And ever since there's an increased argument, of course, politically, but just as well, legally, that to say that a sovereign state does not have any kind of jurisdiction over limiting universal human rights and human rights principles. So this would be an example where we can today meaningfully say that any state can pretty much do what they like, except for in any way threatening the fundamental entitlements of human beings, namely, to be protected and their freedom and well being and so forth. So this seems to be the essence of today's understanding of international jurisprudence. And the challenge for the earth as a whole is to expand this understanding a little bit by saying we also need to realize that thewell being of human beings depends on the protection of the natural environment. So, in addition to human rights concerns, we need to have concerns towards the protection of the natural environment expressed in the context of the sovereign state. So this is jurisprudence. But I hope you can sort of follow the argument that we are beginning to realize, and one has to be, you know, very cautious here because there's always politics in the way. But we can sort of certainly see the trend in international law that goes increasingly towards protecting two fundamental interests of human beings, one's expressed in the concept of human rights and human dignity, and the other expressed in our dependence on the natural world in our need to be protected and our desire to flourish in our lives, protected from environmental pollution and degradation. So there's a lot of traction for this kind of reasoning in the legal literature. The gap is stood between what we can learn in law schools and legal scholarship, on the one hand side, and then in translating this kind of knowledge are these ideas to governmental level and finding enough resonance there. This is, of course, the real challenge, because politics certainly right now, is not ready for it. We're in the pandemic times, we see pretty much the opposite effect, that states are increasingly operating on their own national terms rather than cooperating. And yet, of course, the pandemic would be the perfect example of why we are failing. We are failing largely; we're suffering literally, under the current pandemic situation, because of a lack of cooperation and lack of understanding of how fundamental it is that states take responsibility for the, in this instance, protection of wilderness, of wildlife. This is sort of not a directly related matter, but it has to do with the kind of legacy of international law that we are talking about here.
Kimberly White
And with COVID-19, we really see that the pandemic did not respect borders. And I think for those people who may not have realized, climate change is truly a global issue, not just happening in some far off land. It is impacting everybody. COVID has been a way for people to maybe start to get to that realization.
Klaus Bosselmann
Yes, I can't agree more. It is rather peculiar, isn't it, that, for some reason, states tend to act rather quickly with all the money thrown in when it comes to the perception of oh, our human health is directly affected, people are dying, and so forth. But that kind of urgency that's found here and rightly so is not being easily enough translated to the urgency of climate change, where you have the same phenomenon. People are already dying in many parts of the world, and it only gets worse. And the excuse you're hearing from governments, right is climate change is too complex, and who knows what's really happening and so forth, are no longer excused, that's just the politics, the science is absolutely clear and is somewhat really astonishing, that we do not see the same urgency yet, I should say, with respect to climate change, as we have been seeing with respect to the COVID over the last eight months or so.
Kimberly White
Eight months, it's hard to believe it's been almost this entire year. Our health is tied in with our environment. So I'm hopeful that with these talks of the green recovery plans, we're going to start to move the needle a little bit more. I guess we will have to wait and see. Although we really don't have time to wait and see, we need action now. Do you think that we need a conceptual evolution of law to enhance its capacity to explain and represent our highly interconnected and interdependent earth system? And what could be the implications of such a conceptual evolution?
Klaus Bosselmann
Yeah, it is an intriguing notion, the conceptual evolution of law, and that certainly is what's required. I translate this notion to transformation of law, which describes a similar phenomenon, and here's how it goes. I am rather optimistic here, but then again, being a legal scholar, you do not have the troubles with making it happen in the reality of politics. And yet, of course, we need to be realistic in what can be achieved and how to achieve it. So what lawyers tend to try is having a clear understanding of what the law can do, and equally a clear understanding of how we get there. And there are certain steps to be followed. Now with your question relating to the earth system, how we can sort of increasingly adopt the consideration of common concern of humankind, or, you know, or similar ideas, common heritage of humanity with respect to the earth, there are certain things that are fundamental here. One is what we call soft law. This is just a production of agreements among states, where they declare certain commonalities and shared responsibilities. The famous example would be the Rio declaration, from 1992, on the Environment and Development. And I just give you an example here, principle seven of the Rio declaration talks about the obligations of states to cooperate, in order to protect the integrity of earth ecological system, that we have the acknowledgement of the earth system already in 1992. And not only that, it's defined as a duty, a duty of care, and, arguably, a legal obligation of all states to take this duty seriously, meaning, legally enforceable. So this is a soft law notion repeated in some 25 international agreements all the time, you have the reminder of the drafters, and again, the drafters were states, right representatives of countries, to say that states have a responsibility to protect the integrity of earth's ecological systems. That next step, in order to make it more real, would be to what we call hard law, having a convention or an internationally binding treaty that particularly articulates these notions. We do not have such a treaty as yet. There is a development towards the Global Pactfor the Environment, which potentially could have this acknowledgment of a fundamental obligation of states, but not in the current text, but this is sort of a work under construction, so to speak. So this is your instrument of a future convention that might be having this function. But then there is another level that is, in many ways, even more, important than, you know, treaty law. And that is the level of fundamental norms, and we are all familiar today about the universal acceptance and importance of human rights, by and large, a shared responsibility, at least as a legal responsibility, and we could expand this to mean also an overarching obligation to protect the physical conditions under which human beings are only able to live and thereby having reference to the environment. Now, these things to do with so-called general principles of international law; human rights is seen, as you know, as one of those general principles that exist regardless of any specific treaties that states may have or not have signed. So, this is the underpinning concept of sources of international law, and one very important one would be such a general principle or overall objective or a grundnorm. A grundnorm is an understanding that certain issues have such fundamental importance that they are taken for granted, they do not have to be specifically spelled out in a treaty, and the example here would be again, human rights, right that they are having certain grundnorm character. So that has to do with the general understanding in international law, what, what states are asked to follow soft law, hard law in general principles and grundnorms. And then, more practically, what's required here, under the notion of, you know, conceptual evolution of law, it needs to make a real difference. And it would only make a real difference if we have specific institutions that take our obligations towards the natural environment, at heart, so-called trusteeship institutions.
The conceptual evolution of law is certainly not an effort that we can hope for to be donewithin the next five or ten years. Evolution, of course, takes its own time, and who knows how long it might take. But it seems to me; it is quite clear that the idea of an earth system will sink in, right? It shapes the minds and imagination of lawyers in this instance. We really, what are we doing in quite practical terms, and what I'm working with as my students, lawyers are normally trained from a state-centered perspective, right? They just have an understanding of what can be done with your local government or central government and what can be done taking over this kind of perspective from an existing state. And that needs to be shifted to an earth-centered perspective and then becomes quite clear what our challenges are. Again, it is a gradual step. But there's also a transformational evolution involved if we increasingly adopt an earth-centered concept of understanding of our responsibilities in the design of law. So this will be my sort of rather lengthy take of what I think the conceptual evolution of law could mean.
Kimberly White
A stable climate is a manifestation of a well functioning earth system. However, climate is currently considered a common concern of humankind. Is this the moment to reopen the discussion around the legal status of the climate Earth system and recover the 1988 Malta proposal to apply the legal regime of common heritage to a stable climate Earth system as a single whole?
Klaus Bosselmann
Yeah, that's a good question. Really, I'm grateful because the 1988 Malta proposal was pretty much the time when I started to get involved in climate change law, at the time as a member of the German negotiation team, towards the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. And I remember very well, that was the initiative of the smaller country of Malta, that called for a concept to describe climate change. And at the time, there was, of course, these two fundamental ideas to relate to climate change as a common concern of humankind, in the other proposal, traditionally strongly advocated by Malta and other states as well, to consider climate change or climate, a common heritage of humankind. Now, the difference between those tools is still controversial. At the time, the common concern notion was celebrated as being more stringent, you know, if you're concerned about anything, or something, then you're committed to certain actions. So this is behind the notion of common concern. And those advocates of common concern were dismissing the notion of common heritage as not being so stringent. And I would argue the other way around, because historically, and might I again, is a good example, because that's where the scholarship over centuries, I should add thanks to Catholicism into the theology of, of several centuries to fundamentally consider the earth as a heritage meaning, we have in Christian terminology, you know, earth has been given to us human beings, so we can enjoy it, but not in any way destroyed, because we have a fundamental obligation to pass it on to future generations as is the notion of heritage. So automatically, the enjoyment of nature or the, you know, the enjoyment of air in this instance, right, it comes with the obligation to provide for effective protection of the atmosphere. So I think there is, in fact, a need for being more clear about the notion of common heritage as a concept to describe the climate of a stable climate, and by association, a stable earth system. So the common heritage model is popular, not only in the literature but also expressed in international law. Even though in a very rudimentary form, it was, again, the ambassador of Malta, Arvid Pardo, who gave a famous address to the United Nations General Assembly back in 1967, I believe it was, where he advocated the recognition of all the oceans, the high seas to be a common heritage of mankind, as the terminology was, at the time. Vehemently, arguing along those lines that you and I are interested in, namely, that we need to take good care of the earth as a whole. In this instance, the oceans, Arvid Pardo was regarded as the father of the oceans, and the mother of the oceans was a German scholar, Elisabeth Mann Borgese, who was equally an advocate of common heritage principles with respect to the oceans. So that's how it found its entry into international decision making. And we eventually ended up with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the seas, which does not acknowledge the high seas as a common heritage, but the sea bed or ocean floor is in fact acknowledged as a common heritage, which is not enough obviously, to address the complexities of climate change and so forth. But it's a very good example of what's meant, at least historically meant, by having a reference to common heritage or intangible heritage with respect to the earth system. It fundamentally means in law that in order to benefit from this heritage, we need to have effective protection mechanisms. The reason is that, of course, these areas we are talking about whether it's oceans, the atmosphere, climate, right, or the earth system as a whole, does not belong to anyone, is not subject to any property cannot be, by definition, it is freely accessible to all of us. But it has the question of who's in charge of protecting it? The answer is we all are expressed in the notion of common heritage. So I would think, you know, with respect to the effective climate regime, which we desperately need, we can't rely on the Paris Agreement and ongoing negotiations, there needs to be a far more fundamental understanding that the atmosphere as a whole requires a legal status and the legal status would indeed be the common heritage notion rather than the common concern notion, which I think is too weak and has certainly not done anything. Essentially, it only means, you know, common concern only means yes, we are concerned, but how concerned we are, and what we need to do about it, it's up to us, it's up to the sovereign state. Common heritage law is much stronger than that. But again, like everything in politics and law, it's not so much the labels we put on things but what we really associate with it. I would suggest there's a strong philosophical and legal support for the notion of the intangible common heritage as one of the most forceful ideas that require what I call trusteeship responsibilities of everybody who's associated with it. So let's just hope that you know, the climate debate, especially in the pandemic, and post-pandemic time, will increasingly focus on the subject matter, the atmosphere or the climate as a whole and not, you know, Paris Agreement and not kind of, you know, negotiations that are ongoing, we need to have a far more fundamental understanding that we have a shared responsibility for the atmosphere expressed best your question in the context of a common heritage.
Kimberly White
Absolutely. Can the innovation of recognizing the existence of one intangible global common be the base for a new global governance regime of planetary stewardship?
Klaus Bosselmann
Yeah, so this raises the issue of legal status or institutionalization of care for the environment. Now, I would suggest that the global common as a base for global commons would lead us through a regime of earth trusteeship, which is a little bit more than just a different name to planetary stewardship. I would think that planetary stewardship rightly addresses the morality of the situation, like we need to organize our societies and our lives as human beings within the boundaries within the planetary boundaries. But in order to have a stronger sense of what it means, you know, to live within the boundaries that the planet gives us.
Yes, we need to have a stewardship or guardianship understanding of our responsibilities, which basically is the situation if you like, like, you know, parents look after their children, right, they're minors if you are younger than 18. Parents have a guardian role in legal terms. However, I would suggest the notion of trusteeship is stronger than both stewardship and guardianship. Mainly because the concept of trusteeship is one of the oldest legal concept we know from Roman law times in order to express in civil law, countries and the continent of Europe and common law in England to mean basically, that trusteeship is a form of government where a person institution acts on behalf of others who cannot act themselves for all sorts of practical reasons. And under this notion, the right to only to act on behalf of others but in the best interests of others, again, a parents-children relationship comes to mind. But it goes far deeper. There was an understanding in German legal context, for example, that you have responsibilities towards future generations expressed as trusteeship duties. You have to have the best interests of future generations in mind in whatever you do today. And in more recent times, trusteeship governance, as I said earlier, has been introduced into international law in the context of the trusteeship council and attempts of sovereign states to take good care of those people who are not governed by sovereign states, and this taking good care is expressed as a trusteeship responsibility acting on behalf and in the best interest of another entity or other people. So the notion of earth trusteeship is closely associated, in my opinion, with the notion of intangible global common or earth system governance. It's a logical institutionalization of our responsibility towards the earth system. And it can be done in practical terms, right? The trusteeship responsibility is expressed at the United Nations levels with new institutions. And I mentioned earlier the possibility of the UN Earth Trusteeship Council. But equally, it could be expressed at national levels, either expressed in a constitution, where it's then clear that the state would have a legally enforceable trusteeship responsibility towards the natural environment so that citizens can actually take their government to court if they're not discharging of these duties appropriately or in other countries, such as New Zealand that do not have the same constitutional understanding, they do not have a written constitution that's per se, supreme law. New Zealand isn't a sort of common law country like the UK and others. We do not have a written constitution per se, but we do have interesting developments in law such as the Whanganui River trusteeship model that I explained earlier. In this way, New Zealand would be in the position to commit to the legally enforceable trusteeship governance. So that's my take of planetary stewardship. Simply, in my terminology, and not just me, there is an earth trusteeship initiative. This is a group of more than 100 human rights and environmental organizations we have been working towards a new declaration. That's called a declaration of, well, the full name of this document that we have drafted during the period between 2016 and 2018, The Principles for a Universal Declaration of Responsibilities for Human Rights and Earth Trusteeship, it's a bit of a mouthful, but it was meant to be a historical advancement from the famous Universal Declaration of Human Rights from 1948, which had its 70th anniversary on the 10th of December in 2018. And on that particular day, we adopted, and that's the Earth Trusteeship Initiative adopted the Hague principles in the Peace Palace in The Hague. We're also the Earth Charter, I should add, as Earth Charter was very much behind the idea of the Hague principles. The Earth Charter was adopted in the Peace Palace in The Hague in the year 2000 and has greatly influenced our thinking about, you know, responsibilities for the earth. So I need to mention the earth charter here and the context not only because I think it is a very fundamental document, probably the best document we have today because it is crafted by non-governmental organizations, by civil society organizations over a period of eight years between 1992 and 2000. The Earth Charter came about and personally closely associated with it, and out of the Earth Charter thinking came eventually the idea of, you know how can we articulate our responsibilities for the earth in a more sort of stringent way. So the idea of earth trusteeship came out of it all in parallel to the other very exciting development, namely earth system science. Today, we talk meaningfully about an earth system as a whole, which, 20 to 25 years ago, hardly anybody would have heard of. Of course, they are very close developments earth system, earth system science, earth system approach, earth charter, earth trusteeship, as always, the earth is at the focal point of it all. So to me that the notion of, you know, the global common as a base of new global governance and planetary stewardship has really a lot of legal meaning, and I'm very hopeful that we can articulate this very clearly. I wouldn't visit in the first place in the context of the Global Pact for the Environment that's currently being looked at at the UN level, even though not much progress has been made. But an opportunity would be the Stockholm plus 50 summit in July 2022. And hopefully, we as civil society, with the support of maybe some states, will be able to provide some really strong text calling for the recognition of the earth system as an intangible common heritage of humankind. And associated with it, the idea or the need to, you know, provide for legal and institutional means to actually protect the earth system as a whole.
So there are interesting times ahead. And I personally, rather optimistically, would say that the pandemic has been such an inspiration to many people around the world, knowing that we need to do things far better. In fact, in a far more stringent and overarching way, as we have done it in the past. In the past, states have operated in a rather fragmented and uncoordinated coordinated way. But the pandemic has been such a defining experience where we can see how we are mutually dependent on the same things caused by a ridiculous small virus. And all of a sudden, we see the entire word sort of dancing to the tune of the virus. So that's something somehow and sings in what we are doing to ourselves and how we react to it. And furthermore, seeing that the incredible need of taking science seriously, and acting in accordance with, you know, the laws of nature, we really need to be mindful here, then I would be rather optimistic when it comes to, you know, a meaningful global governance model that protects the earth as a whole. And not just the climate, by the way, climate is much talked about, but of course, is intrinsically connected with the oceans and biodiversity, you cant meaningfully separate these things, and that's where the strength of earth system thinking comes, comes in. So in the long run, I think this is, you know, this is the way where we will be going. The only question is, of course, whether it will be too late or not, but the kind of framing of Earth System Science and system governments that has a great future.
Kimberly White
And I think, you know, just as you said with the pandemic, it's been terrible. But I think in a way, it's really almost brought us together in this way of, we need to take what we've learned, and we need to build back better. And I'm hopeful that we can gather that political will quickly enough to avoid issues like this in the future. I saw a recent report stating there are a lot more viruses similar or even more severe than COVID, and if we keep going the way we're going, it's not a pretty picture.
Klaus Bosselmann
Yeah, yeah. Yeah.
I mean, in recent months, we had so many meetings around the world about this phenomenon. And it seems to me so obvious, is almost a symbol, right that we have blurred the boundary between wildlife and human settlements. And what previously was seen as oops, you know, something we shouldn't do, and maybe there is some value in having untouched nature and not straining everything. We are talking, of course, the wildlife trading, a huge exploitation of wildlife; it's a multibillion industry and all the rest of it. And all of a sudden, we are realizing what has gone wrong. We have overstepped the incredibly important boundaries between natural spheres and humans spheres rather than, you know, blending in into natural spheres. Humans have expanded their own spheres all the time, and, of course, greatly accelerated by the mobility that we are having the spread of the pandemic, just, you know, everything was foreseeable, and, of course, has been predicted by so many experts. But there you are. I'd like to see a positive in all this; it could be the great unifier, could really be leading to a situation where this notion of common responsibility, shared responsibility, global governance really makes sense. So this, I mean, it's too early to tell. Obviously, we are in the middle of the pandemic, and it probably gets worse before it gets better. But if there's anything to learn, it would have to do with making the notion of cooperation and global governance and mutual trust and so forth utterly, utterly important. Let's hope that governments will learn this. So I think the pandemic will have a great effect on being far more responsible in the way how we govern ourselves.
Kimberly White
All right, and there you have it. We currently find ourselves with an outdated legal construct that does not cater to the shared enforceable responsibilities of a sovereign state towards our global environment, even though the functioning of these ecological systems is vital to our survival and how recognition of the earth system as an intangible common heritage of humankind can provide the legal and institutional means to protect the earth system as a whole. It's time to take science seriously and act in accordance with the laws of nature. That is all for today, and thank you for joining us for this episode of Common Home Conversations Beyond UN75. Please subscribe, share, and be sure to tune in on December 30th to continue the conversation with our special guest, Ana Barreira, lawyer and Director and founding member of the International Institute for Law and the Environment (IIDMA). And visit us at www.ThePlanetaryPress.com for more episodes and the latest news in sustainability, climate change, and the environment.
Interview Transcript
Transcribed by Otter AI
Kimberly White
Hello and welcome to Common Home Conversations. Today we are joined by Richard Ponzio, Director of the Just Security 2020 Program and a Senior Fellow at the Stimson Center. Previously, Richard directed the Global Governance Program at The Hague Institute for Global Justice, where he served as Director for the Albright-Gambari Commission on Global Security, Justice, and Governance.
Thank you for joining us today, Richard!
Richard Ponzio
Thank you, Kimberly.
Kimberly White
Can you tell us more about your role at Stimson and what you're working on?
Richard Ponzio
I am a Senior Fellow and Director of the Just Security 2020 program. The program is focused on UN and broader global governance, innovation, strengthening, making the international system more inclusive, voices of civil society, of course, but non-state actors working with governments, and of course, international organizations like the United Nations to address the 21st-century challenges. From climate change to rising violence in parts of the world to, of course, the pandemic, which is on everybody's mind today.
Kimberly White
Very interesting! And speaking of the pandemic, we're currently going through a global health crisis, a climate crisis, and a biodiversity crisis. Can these become the common ground that we need to find new multilateral solutions, such as the Global Pact for the Environment, to our shared problems?
Richard Ponzio
If these issues don't, I don't know what will, in terms of rethinking our multilateral system, how the 193 member states come together. But as I said in my introduction, we're looking very much at solutions. But also capabilities, ideas, networks coming from non-state actors, global civil society is a terminology often used in this context. But it means a lot of things social media, social movements, actually. And religious organizations, to academics, think tanks, like the institution I'm a part of, but all the way down to the grassroots and community level organizing, at the same time, either part of civil society or working in its own right. The private sector, the business community, incredibly rich with talent, technical ingenuity, financial resources, of course, but you know, we look to them for leadership as well and working with governments and international organizations, which I presume we'll be talking a bit about because that's what my own research, scholarly work has focused on for years. And these two or three intertwined crises that you mentioned, the climate crisis biodiversity, and of course, the health crisis was really prominently featured in the COVID-19 pandemic that we're all experiencing.
You know, never has there been such a maelstrom of forces that have forced the international community to rethink how we're organizing ourselves, how we're looking at these issues. Through global fora, such as the United Nations, the World Bank is very much on the frontlines of these issues. Major informal groupings of states such as the G20, they all have a contribution to make. But I think as a starting point, you refer to the Global Pact for the Environment. I think it's critical that as the Global Pact, in its early days of being discussed and negotiated, it really makes the point that, hey, we have all of these international agreements out there; there's principles associated with many of them. What are some of the common threads, common foundational principles between the major conventions on climate change on biodiversity, but again, hundreds of other agreements that deal with the global environment. I think if we have more coherence, and a sense of vision and a roadmap through this new instrument, called a Global Pact for the Environment, this will really, I think, build on the solidarity that we're seeing worldwide as a result of the global pandemic. And then we channel the sense of a common global identity, global citizenship, to then work on common global problem solving. And that's at the heart, again, of what the Global Pact for the Environment and its particular concerns with issues such as the biodiversity and climate crisis, I think they're just critical. And as we see today, health issues are intimately related to environmental concerns. And it's so important that we then look in an interdisciplinary fashion to address these problems simultaneously. But it's going to require a rethink both of our institutional framework and instruments that take our normative framework from previous years and upgrade them. And that's, in a sense, what the Global Pact for the Environment is all about.
Kimberly White
So essentially, at this point, we need all hands on deck.
Richard Ponzio
Absolutely. Hundred percent. And that's why it's great to see whether it's the annual meetings of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and all the work that's gone into the massive 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Using technologies to have online consultations, it's really pushed the frontiers on how inclusive these UN policymaking processes can be. And the same thing needs to happen now for the Global Pact for the Environment. The ideas cannot come from within a small UN Secretariat or within the private sector alone; it's really got to be voices from different parts of humanity.
Kimberly White
Absolutely. As an expert in politics, governance, and international relations, what do you see as the biggest challenges of establishing this Global Pact for the Environment?
Richard Ponzio
The biggest challenge is not understanding and diagnosing the problems related to a whole host of environmental challenges. Not just climate, the big one, or, you know, if we let science guide us, we're going to get the vaccine, as we've been seeing in recent weeks, and fighting the pandemic. We even, I think, have a lot of tools in the toolbox for conflict resolution and pushing back against violent extremism, at the heart of all these issues. You mentioned my background and issues of governance and politics, especially at the global level. It's the fear that we are eroding and ripping apart the very foundations of the international system of governance that was created in the aftermath of a major cataclysmic World War, the second world war in the early 1940s. And so, this past year has been monumental, not just because of the pandemic, but the 75th anniversary, a chance to review and reflect on the UN system. But what we're seeing at the same time is rising nationalism, an exclusive form of nationalism that really works against the core principles, the spirit of global cooperation on any issue, including, I think, the environmental themes that we'll be talking about today. And unless we realize how corrosive, how negative and deleterious it is to these institutions, their basic functioning, the signals that members of the Secretariat that starting with the Secretary-General of the United Nations get when they hear lack of cooperation. You've heard a term called vaccine nationalism arise.
Even with the hope that is provided by solving the pandemic, now there's going to be questions about which countries and who within those countries will get access to the vaccine first, and that there needs to be a treatment of an issue of such critical magnitude at the global level. Like a vaccineto help us restore normalcy in societies. We're going to get, I think, to the economic dimensions, the knock-on effects, including the environmental effects from the pandemic crisis. But first things first, the health crisis needs a level of global cooperation. First of all, the World Health Organization has been crippled and politicized and has a lot to do with the rise of a combination of even democratic countries that are building artificial walls, so to speak, and sometimes literal walls in their country to protect them from spillover effects. And it's just quite short-sighted to believe that whether it's the pandemic, these environmental themes we'll be exploring today, a whole host of global security questions that you can isolate yourself in this world. But many countries believe, I mean, the populist leaders are whipping up fear and whipping up confusion about the role of global institutions. And until we get a basic understanding of why these institutions were created, and why they, in fact, do need to be upgraded, modernize, made even more inclusive, certainly adopting principles of sustainability and justice at their core, they only then can they function effectively, and then deliver global public goods and address global public bads that countries are understandably afraid of. So it's absolutely critical, and I hope we can get into some of the specific ways those changes could occur in the not so distant future. It's not like these are long term, Don Quixoteesque plans that will take hundreds of years to implement. No, we have ideas under discussion now in connection with the Global Pact for the Environment that can lead to rather ambitious changes even in the next three to five years; and they're going to be critical for addressing the biggest challenges of the present era.
Kimberly White
And one of the biggest challenges is climate change. Climate change is creating cascading detrimental effects on our societies, such as inequality, migration, conflicts, health issues, security issues, and international relations, not to mention the impacts on our economies. Yet, we're only talking about climate change as an isolated problem of carbon dioxide emissions. How can we get past treating these challenges as separate issues?
Richard Ponzio
Yeah, each of the issues are important in their own right and could be unpacked and part of an entire discussion. But it's so important that climate not be looked at just in terms of CO2 emissions, not to think that there's an easy technical fix. Although some talk about geoengineering and shooting sulfates into the atmosphere, that's going to somehow cool the earth off. And it's interesting to explore a whole host of technological fixes, especially related to green technologies. Things we can use in our everyday lives and rethink how industry is doing and green infrastructure, especially as it is again connected to the mentioned health issues and the pandemic, we have this huge opportunity as we recover economically, but also to invest in the type of infrastructure. That was not the case a decade ago when the world faced another monumental financial crisis. And it took several years to dig out of, and there are statistics being tossed around that we spent for every $6 of infrastructure stimulus investments back in 2009, 2010, 2011.
Only $1 can be considered green infrastructures, such as retrofitting your buildings, and, of course, public transportation, and even electrical grids done in a different way that are more energy-efficient and would reduce emissions. So that's on the economic side, there's a huge body of work. And that's where we came up with sustainable development, through Gro Harlem Brundtland’s World Commission on Environment Development back in 1987, leading to the Earth Summit, leading to the Framework Convention on Climate Change. But where the debate is today, you know, a lot being discussed about the connection between environment and security issues. Two or three years ago, there was a Marrakech the World Summit on migration issues, and certainly, the environmental and climate dimensions of that set of issues was unpacked. So we absolutely, in an interdisciplinary fashion, need to understand the only way we're going to deal with easily the biggest challenge of our time- Climate change is a far more complex, dangerous, ominous set of issues linked to it than the pandemic, which we're going to get a handle on things sooner than later. But hopefully, we can learn the right lessons of how international communities organize and how we chip away at a project as big, complex, and multidimensional as climate change. And that means looking at the economic dimensions, the health dimensions, the security, even issues of migration and refugees. We think that they're all being driven by things like conflict or economic needs. That's true. But the overwhelming evidence is showing that climate change is now, but in the future will more so be the major push factor of refugee movements, even migration to countries that are maybe suffering less. So the whole debate around learning to live with climate change in the short term and adapting. But we need to be still having these discussions hand in hand with mitigation debates and really slowing the pace of climate change. Otherwise, the world in many parts of the world becomes uninhabitable. So that's why going back to the basics and what the Global Pact for the Environment represents in terms of core principles, a guiding vision, and understanding the need for a multidimensional approach and moving beyond just a focus on CO2 emissions. That's absolutely critical if we're going to get a strong handle on this fundamental challenge of our time, climate change.
Kimberly White
I would love to get your thoughts on the calls for a green recovery. We're starting to see them all across the world. Do you think we’re beginning to see a shift towards governments recognizing that these issues are tied together, they are not separate, and we cannot work on them in silo?
Richard Ponzio
This is the big question on all of our minds, and we'll see the evidence even within, I'd say 6 to 12 months, how much people put their money investments and real effort where their mouth is on talking about a green recovery. That before the green recovery, we had in the US Green New Deal set of proposals, at least for one of the two political parties. But many other countries of the EU as a whole, Korea, many countries have picked up the nomenclature. And now they're combining that with another common phrase linked to the pandemic; build back better. We hear it in the United States context, but it's actually been picked up and integrated into the recent declaration for the 75th anniversary of the United Nations. So signed on by 193 member states and their world leaders who met, of course, virtually, but did so in the last few weeks at the annual high-level segment of the General Assembly. And not only are they saying, you know, we need to build back better, and they're focused on, of course, getting their economies going and jobs, and greener, so green recovery. This creates such a fortuitous situation because a year ago at the UN Climate Summit, the previous UN General Assembly high-level segment in New York, September of 2019, it was well known that we are off pace, and starting with the biggest countries, the biggest emitters, the biggest economies those associated with the G20 were, in particular falling behind on their own nationally determined commitments. You know, some of the questions we need to ask ourselves is the voluntary approach, which is at the heart of the Paris Climate Agreement. Why it's different than the Kyoto Protocol, a binding, enforceable international legal instrument? You know, everybody says this revolutionary new model, global governance, is going to be the future because it's about outcomes and results and impact that matter more. And I agree, if it's delivering results, then we should all be 100% behind the Paris Climate Agreement. But when the biggest countries are not even following their own adopted commitments, in part because of questions of enforcement and verification. What are the consequences, the penalties when they don't follow through? Of course, the US did pull itself out and made the initial step towards pulling out in 2017. And it just happened two days after the US election. We fully expect on the first day of the new Biden administration for the US to resign and recommit itself. But back to your question on green recovery. It has so many meanings and dimensions to it. But this is, you know, the fundamental opportunity to wean ourselves off of fossil fuel producing engines of our economy to you know, all kinds of green infrastructure investments, as I noted, in response to the previous question, to, you know, government action, incentives, regulatory environment, to really incentivize the private sector to become the chief engine for the green technologies, which I think are going to be at the heart of a green recovery.
But yeah, it's not going to be done by any one country, it's not going to be done by government or the private sector, it's going to be a combination of these actors. And of course, we're going to have partners and ideas coming out of civil society, think tanks, universities, that are going to be, you know, central to not only pushing the debate in terms of what green recovery could mean, and be realized in a practical sense. But they're also going to be the watchdogs. And they're going to be the ones analyzing and showing, hey, you use all this wonderful rhetoric about moving towards renewables and getting the Paris Agreement action plan on course. But the reality is, and I fully expect some good analysis to come even within the first six months of 2021.
Kimberly White
Well, I'm looking forward to seeing how everything plays out for sure. I'm excited to see all these new commitments, and the time for action is now, so hopefully, we start to see that happen. So let's move on to my next question. The tensions resulting from our global interdependence confront us with the need to redefine the global commons. Do you agree that we need a new legal and political theory based on the commons to make it possible to explain and harmonize these tensions?
Richard Ponzio
You know, global commons, it's been around I believe, if I'm not mistaken, it's the Law of the Sea treaty, debated throughout the 1970s adopted treaty signed in 1982. And even today, not all countries are adhering to it or even fully ratified members. But the terminology continues, and it's at the heart of the recognition that we have interdependence. Among first and foremost states is the major actor in global governance today and how issues are being addressed. But for redefining the global commons today, it's going to have a lot to do withgetting it into an instrument like the Global Pact for the Environment. But I think having non-state actors, having corporations of various kinds, not just the multinational but small and medium-sized enterprises that at the national level, those even operating at the local have some degree of appreciation, understanding of this concept of a global commons. Introducing it then, in an instrument, like the Global Pact for the Environment, absolutely will have all kinds of legal and political implications. And maybe in a practical sense, it will be then translated in ways that people then can connect local thinking and certainly local action to the notion of global commons, which needs to translate, of course, into global action. And in terms of environmental issues, sustainability, linkages, with all of the issues we noted earlier today. The health crisis that we're facing at the present moment, issues of peace and security that, you know, everybody thinks it's conflicts that are driving refugee movements and migration today. It's very much environmental factors that are also at the forefront, and of course, it can lead to a vicious circle where these issues are all interdependent just as countries.
Consequently, countries are interdependent because the issues that consume their nation's populace, consume political leaders, are all issues that have an often certainly regional and many times global dimension. And until we start to refine concepts such as a global commons, we're not going to, I think, be able to upgrade our political institutions and regional and global levels to be more effective on essentially collective action, problem solving. So these are absolutely fundamental steps that will have a strong basis in legal and political theory. If, you know, they're both to be understood first and foremost by scholars and academics who care about legal and political theory. But then to translate it into practical tools and applications and things that will affect everyday people's lives will be front and center, and how political leaders look at these issues. I think we're talking about something that will take time. But it will be nothing less than a transformation in how we analyze, and then the types of recommendations we put forward for addressing fundamental challenges such as the climate crisis, biodiversity loss, and even in the near term issues of great concern related to recovery from the pandemic.
Kimberly White
A very much needed transformation. We've talked a lot about the crises facing our global community today. How would the framework proposed by the Common Home of Humanity help us to tackle these challenges?
Richard Ponzio
I think it is designed as a community of great thinkers from across different disciplines, who really are starting to see that working in their individual silos and specific areas of expertise has great limitations and to combine the intellectual power of this community to policymaking processes, beginning with the Global Pact for the Environment, it's just fortuitous that there was an initiative within certain countries. And I believe the Office of the Secretary-General, countries such as Portugal, where the Secretary-General is from, playing a leading role in advancing the notion of the pact for the global environment. It's absolutely critical that these ideas are not kept in a parallel divorced channel that is not engaging governments and senior International Civil Servants working on the same energy issues. We need to bridge the gap marry these two communities and ensure that the Common Home of Humanity to realize its full potential is at the forefront of shaping this particular instrument, the Global Pact for the Environment, in the near term. And then there will be a considerable amount of work after its adoption.
Many of us hope that the historic 50th anniversary of the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment, coming up in 2022, one would hope the Swedish government, champion on many of these issues will be hosting a meeting in its capital Stockholm to celebrate, but more importantly, talk about the next phase in the agenda that was started way back in 1972 in Stockholm. So a natural follow on and a new generation of action could follow from not only what we've been discussing in terms of the upgrade and central importance of taking the Paris Climate Agreement to the next level. But I would say a parallel track but intersecting in many ways will be this instrument, the Global Pact for the Environment, which then touches upon the other major convention starting with biodiversity, action plans on desertification, all kinds of other pollution-related issues. We need to look holistically at a whole range of environmental concerns and not just fixate on the climate crisis alone. We can't solve one without the other. And then the same thing can be said,of getting beyond the environmental challenges and dealing with, of course, the governance framework and how the UN and governments are consumed with many other challenges on a daily basis besides climate or a host of other environmental concerns. And we need to be not only cognizant of that, but make the case that the security challenges of the future, the human rights agenda, which is front and center of what the United Nations is all about.
Continuing to reduce extreme poverty, especially in light of the pandemic, which has led to huge economic dislocation and upending the sustenance of millions, if not billions, of people worldwide. Informal economies and the regulated economies of the world, they absolutely need government leaders, decision-makers, especially in policy bodies, such as the United Nations need to see the connections because this is what's going to consume governments and leaders and diplomats for the coming years, dealing with these fundamental day to day survival challenges. And just like, if you're in the middle of something on the scale of a World War, you're going to just focus on that and addressing that and everything else put to the wayside. No, we need to be able to focus on climate and other environmental concerns. The pace of biodiversity loss is just staggering, and it's going to have untold consequences. So the way to address those is, again, getting back to first principles. Things like the Global Pact for the Environment can contribute significantly. And really rethink then how we want our international institutions and then the governments that are part of that, to behave and to act and to deliver on the most crucial challenges of our time. They need to look in an interdisciplinary way across the whole set of environmental concerns. But then the connections, as I noted, with other major baskets of issues, in the security, economic, human rights, even cultural domain, they all have an effect on whether or not we succeed in combating the climate crisis, arguably the biggest challenge the UN has seen since its creation in 1945.
Kimberly White
The legal framework proposed by the Common Home of Humanity can really help create a system of accountancy to support agreements like the Paris Agreement, a global deal for nature, and much more, as you mentioned earlier.
Richard Ponzio
I think it gets to the heart of what I feel is missing. I subscribe to the arguments that the founders of the United Nations had in 1945 when they were trying to build a system that responded to the Second World War, but really the failure of international governance in the form of the League of Nations, which was of course created in the immediate aftermath of another world war, the Great War 1914 to 1918. And they really made everything based on the consensus of all the member states at that time, of course, dominated by colonial powers. But the reality is, it created paralysis, and nothing could get done if everybody had veto. And so it's definitely criticized today, the Security Council with the dominance of the permanent five powers of Russia, China, the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, questions about whether or not they deserve to have not only the permanent seat on the Security Council, which is again, the only body that allows for binding, enforceable international law through its decisions, but the use of veto power.
That compromise was absolutely fundamental to create the UN back in 1945. There are some important lessons we have to balance, pragmatic, real politic with more progressive notions of how international governance should be organized. But applying that to the climate crisis, the environmental crisis, I know that there's incredible thinking and innovation in the Paris Climate Agreement, I'm not at all wishing to denigrate the progress, and I do celebrate the achievement that it represented back in 2015. But the jury is still very much out whether or not governments will ratchet up their commitments as expected, and most importantly, the verification procedures; there's talk that that itself would be enforceable, somehow, someway over time.
Well, that gets to the heart of how we empower our international governance system. And there's nothing akin to what I was discussing in the Security Council domain—and being able to, as an international community, take action collectively to enforce binding international laws. There's no parallel now to the biggest challenge of our time, the climate crisis. So while we're not going to create a global climate security type council and have just a few major countries dominated, that's not what we're proposing. But we need to see, what was the thinking even from 75 years ago, or even more recent times, the conventions on political, civil, cultural, economic, social rights of the 1970s. There's lessons in recent years, the Law of the Sea treaty, and the type of tribunal that they set up for dispute settlement mechanism. There probably are some really strong arguments that we need similar types of institutional innovations. But first things first, we need to get common principles to be revisited, updating the global commons notion, and really begin to take forward this notion of the common concern of humankind and making sure that its legal status is upgraded. And that's where initiatives like the Common Home for Humanity can really make a significant and timely contribution.
Kimberly White
Excellent. Thank you, Richard. Before we go, is there anything else you would like to share with our audience?
Richard Ponzio
Yes, I'll conclude by saying alongside the opportunity presented by the 50th anniversary of the Stockholm conference on the human environment, so that would be in 2022. We're hoping that an outcome of the 75th anniversary of the United Nations when I say we, my research program at the Stimson Center think tank, of course. But we're working with many other partners and civil society, the Together First campaign, UN 2020, all of which are familiar with and supportive of what the Common Home of Humanity is all about. But these groups are going to get behind a very important report of the Secretary-General that was mandated by member states this past September. And it is on the follow through to the 12 commitments at the heart of the UN 75 declaration. Protecting Mother Earth is the second major commitment, ensuring no country, no people are left behind I think is the exact formulation, but it's the first commitment. But that's not only speaking to the pandemic and recovery but how the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement are critical to recovery and to the issues that we discussed today, beginning with the climate and biodiversity crisis. So the opportunity presented by this initiative is something that I hope your listeners will follow closely. The report of the Secretary-General is expected to be out by September, and many of us are already hoping for a more ambitious and more serious intergovernmental process than the UN75 declaration. It was a very important first step. It was catalytic, and it was during very difficult times of rising nationalism, not to mention the pandemic. So we applaud what was achieved, and we were pleased to be part of that process. But we believe it needs to kick off a much more serious intergovernmental and multi-stakeholder process of global governance innovation. And we'll see what form it takes and how long will we need it, certainly before the 80th anniversary of the United Nations in 2025. We would like to see some significant changes which, over time, can be even labeled transformative. But first things first, many of these institutional machinery changes of the international system and not just the UN, but the linkages to the G20, the World Trade Organization, the Bretton Woods institutions, it's absolutely fundamental that we look at the system as a whole. And perhaps alongside the work on the Global Pact for the Environment and the Stockholm plus 50 Review Conference, we might be seeing a parallel institutional change process coming off of the Secretary General's mandated UN75 follow through report. So keep our eye on that process and try to get involved and know that we could be turning the corner to creating the institutions that are fundamental for today's 21st-century challenges, rather than, you know, a 20th-century structure of global governance, which is very much about diplomats and states running the show. I think the new model of global governance, a multi-stakeholder one, something that I believe is at the heart of the Common Home of Humanity project; it's absolutely critical. We are long overdue and need these kinds of important changes to create a more inclusive system of global governance that really delivers results for all people and especially the most vulnerable.
Kimberly White
All right, and there you have it. Globally, we are going through a climate emergency, devastating biodiversity loss, and a health crisis. Evidence shows us how interconnected these issues are, showcasing the need for global solidarity and action to solve these shared challenges. The Global Pact for the Environment can be the necessary instrument that leads to ambitious changes critical to addressing our planet's greatest challenges. That is all for today, and thank you for joining us for this episode of Common Home Conversations Beyond UN75. Please subscribe, share, and be sure to tune in next week to continue the conversation with our special guest, Klaus Bosselmann, Director of the New Zealand Centre for Environmental Law at the University of Auckland. And visit us at www.ThePlanetaryPress.com for more episodes and the latest news in sustainability, climate change, and the environment.
Interview Transcript
Transcribed by Otter AI
Kimberly White
Hello and welcome to Common Home Conversations. Today we are joined by Prue Taylor, Deputy Director of the New Zealand Centre for Environmental Law. Prue is also a member of the IUCN Commission of Environmental Law and its Ethics Specialist Group. She was awarded the outstanding achievement award from the IUCN in recognition of her contribution as a world pioneer on law, ethics, and climate change. Thank you for joining us today!
Prue Taylor
You're very welcome, Kimberly.
Kimberly White
So climate change doesn't recognize borders; it spans our globe reaching the most remote corners, affecting all of us. It's happening now, and it's happening everywhere. And it's happening at an alarming rate. Can you tell us about some of the adverse effects of climate change you're seeing in New Zealand?
Prue Taylor
Absolutely, I can, because they're happening on a daily basis. And they're happening here in New Zealand in ways that are increasingly dramatic. And there is a growing acceptance that the impacts of climate change that we're seeing here in New Zealand are, in fact, associated with, you know, changes to global atmospheric temperatures. So what we're seeing in New Zealand, temperature increases, which are manifesting in more extreme drought events. So these drought events are longer than more severe, and they're more frequent. And that's really impacting us as a nation because we're essentially still an agricultural nation. But also, our large urban areas are really starting to suffer. And Auckland City, which is our biggest urban area in New Zealand, is, as we speak, in the middle of a really serious water crisis. So there are a lot of water restrictions for us and the city right now. On the flip side of the coin, we're seeing a lot of extreme rainfall events; when the rain comes, it really comes. And that is exacerbating the flooding risk for New Zealand. New Zealand, as a country that is very, very prone to floods anyway, it's one of the significant natural hazards that we have. And climate change is accelerating and exacerbating those flooding events and risks. We're also seeing more frequent storms and much more storm damage. We're a long, narrow country in the middle of the massive Pacific Ocean. So we're seeing a lot of coastal damage. In terms of the ocean, which is very close to my heart, we're seeing increasing numbers of ocean heatwaves. So that is really where areas of the ocean are warming up very, very significantly around New Zealand. So we see some parts of the ocean around New Zealand with very elevated ocean temperatures between around four to five degrees Celsius higher than they would normally be. And that's really, really a dramatic climate change impact. But probably the climate change impact that has really galvanized New Zealanders recently has been wildfires. Now wildfires is not something that New Zealand has really experienced very much in the past, unlike, of course, Australia. But very recently, we've had a number of wildfires impacting urban areas, not just our forestry sector, but also our urban areas. And that's really started to focus the attention of New Zealanders on climate change impacts. And all of this has to be seen in a context which is quite unique to New Zealand. And that is that we're in the middle of the massive Pacific Ocean, which means that to some degree, ocean function does protect us from some of the most dramatic impacts of climate change. In other words, the Pacific Ocean has been seen traditionally as a moderating element that would kind of insulate us somewhat from the impacts of increased global atmospheric temperature change. So it seems as though we're not as insulated and protected by the Pacific Ocean as we had thought we might be.
Kimberly White
That's interesting. We've seen wildfires in California, and you know, we see some significant flooding in Florida from climate change. One of the most interesting videos I think we've seen is from Miami. During the king tide a few years ago, there was a lot of flooding, and they filmed an octopus in a parking garage.
Prue Taylor
Yeah, yeah. Sometimes when you see those, you get those images of something dramatically out of place. They shock your consciousness, don't they?
Kimberly White
Definitely. I think that was a wake-up call for a lot of people down in Miami for sure. As a professor and expert in international environmental law, do you think we need a new legal innovation to address the global climate and biodiversity crises?
Prue Taylor
Yes, I mean, if we open our eyes, and we look at the situation that we're currently in with, you know, massive decline and our ecological systems and, you know, the sorts of climate change impacts that I've just talked about. When we look at where we're at and what we're experiencing, what natural systems, what's happening to natural systems; How could we not acknowledge that we need some fundamental, fundamental change to our law and governance systems? I mean, to deny that we need change is to deny reality. And answering this question of governance absolutely, we need fundamental change. And, you know, I've been working in this area for 30 years, and I can honestly say, I feel that we are going backward. Okay, we've made some incremental improvements in some areas. And, you know, we have those incremental improvements in some areas. If we focus on those, we could say, well, we've achieved something. Something better than if we had had no international law and governance in this area. But frankly, when you look at it at an, you know, a level of accumulated impacts, and pace and scale, when really all we've been doing in the last 30 years, is an accelerated version of a really 1970s pollution control kind of approach, where we just look at continuing business as usual, but finding ways to mitigate or reduce harm, and I call this the do less harm approach. But what happens is, over time and scale,that less harmaccumulates and accelerates and in combination with other harms and degradation to connected ecological systems. Everything is driving downwards. Everything is spiraling downwards. And the other fundamental or another fundamental failure of our existing law and governance framework, which really calls out for change, is the barrier that's inherent in the system. Where nation-states grudgingly negotiate what they're prepared to do or what they're not prepared to do through or from the perspective of national self-interest. There is no sense of collective responsibility for the benefit of everyone that needs to qualify how we exercise national self-interest. So this kind of grudging, incremental, piecemeal negotiation of ecological crises, as they suddenly become apparent in isolation from other ecological crises, is imperiling our existence and imperiling the earth system, so we have to change.
Kimberly White
Absolutely. And with the pandemic, we see how interconnected everything is. These aren't standalone issues.
Prue Taylor
Yep, absolutely right. They're not standalone issues. But I think they, you know; COVID really demonstrates the magnitude of what's going on and the pace of what's happening. And therefore the scope of change that's required.
Kimberly White
So how can the knowledge developed by Earth System Sciences and the definition of the earth system core drivers, the planetary boundaries, influence the concept of global commons?
Prue Taylor
I think that Earth System Science enables us to see what we intuitively knew existed before but couldn't really adequately define and comprehend. So Earth System Science has given us a firm scientific basis to help us understand, comprehend, and define that we as humanity share a global ecological commons. So Earth System Science is crucial to that idea of a shared global ecological commons. But that global ecological commons is very complex. And it's an interconnected system that we can now see operates at multiple scales, but ultimately, it operates at a planetary scale. And what Earth System Science helps us understand is at a very, very fundamental level, that what we do everywhere, and anywhere, impacts that shared global commons. So Earth System Science they're taking this to sort of another level. Earth System Science helps us understand that we have a shared global ecological commons that supports and is the basis for all life.
So it's a commons that we are part of as human beings, and we share with all life. However, Earth System Science also helps us comprehend and define and increasingly measure that this shared global commons is under very serious threat from the collective actions of humanity. Not from some evil god or some other source, but from the collective action of humanity. At another level, again, for me, what Earth System Science helps us to comprehend is, the earth system is a very fundamental part of our home. And this is our home, of course, that we share with all humanity and all life that we're having detrimental impacts on. But Earth System Science helps us understand our home as something of incredible beauty. That, in fact, Earth System Science is part of the miracle of life on planet Earth. And this is a very, very precious thing that we share, it is a precious inheritance if you like, and we have to respect this and have a responsible attitude towards this precious inheritance. So ultimately, Earth System Science helps us understand that what we do to the earth system we do to ourselves. And if we treasure it, and nurture it and work towards its benefit, then we are, in fact, acting consistently with and responsibly towards the Earth. For the benefit of all.
Kimberly White
How can our oceans, already recognized as a global common, become a model when thinking about international law and governance?
Prue Taylor
Well, first of all, in answering that question, we have to begin by acknowledging, unfortunately, that current law and governance regimes for the oceans are deeply flawed. These law and governance regimes for the oceans, they share many of the problems of international environmental law. So I'd like to begin by saying, well, current law and governance for the ocean is deeply flawed. We can really better understand the potential of understanding the ocean as a global commons; if we step away from that traditional law and governance regime and think very deeply about how the ocean works as one interconnected ecosystem, one interconnected global ecosystem. So when we think of the ocean, it has a very fluid nature, and it connects all nations, and it connects all humanity. And ultimately, it operates as one system. And when we really get our heads around that incredible interconnectedness, then that really stands in stark contrast. And it defies the efforts of nation-states to continue to claim that their territorial rights and their sovereign rights can be exercised in a way that denies that reality. And other words can be exercised, irrespective of the interconnectedness of the ocean. So I think what's really interesting about the ocean is that when we sit down and think about it, it's an incredible model, at a different scale for the way the earth system works as an interconnected global commons. And although for many of us, it's because human beings are often very focused on land, and biodiversity on land. For many of us, that territorial focus that we have, that land focus that we have, as human beings, takes us a while to really understand the magnitude of the oceans as a massive system. But once we do, I think that becomes a very good model that we can then get our heads around and use to help us to understand sort of the next level up the planetary scale of the earth system. I think also when we focus on the ocean, we can see it as a living system that can exhibit signs of good health, that's well functioning systems. But equally, we're starting to see that the ocean as an interconnected system can exhibit the signs of poor or bad health or degradation. And even in places, we can see parts of the ocean ecosystems dying. So I think sometimes, when we talk about Earth System Science, it can seem to be at a scale that is very difficult to comprehend. And to help us with that, we can begin by understanding how the ocean operates as a massive global ecological system that connects us all and then use that to help scale up our understanding and our thinking.
And there's one other way in which the ocean is really important here. And that is that the ocean is an incredibly important element and the way the whole earth system operates. So it is one of those sorts of mega elements within the world, system if you like. So I think that's also a way in which an understanding of the ocean as a global commons that's interconnected, connects us, and whatever we do, wherever we are in relation to the ocean, impacts the whole. I think that that framework for understanding helps us get our head around the earth system and what's happening with the earth system in a manageable way.
Kimberly White
And I think, you know, when you're talking about those impacts of that shared responsibility, it reminds me of the plastic pollution crisis, almost. Because we all have these plastic bottles, and you throw them in the bin, and they go away, but they never really go away. They may be out of your sight, but they exist somewhere, continuing to cause problems for someone else.
All life on Earth shares global ecological commons, and we can now clearly define the interconnectedness of the earth system. It is time to take the next step in terms of law and governance to confront the global climate and biodiversity crisis. Do you think the common heritage concept for the earth system would better enable us to manage these crises that we and future generations face?
Prue Taylor
Yes, I do for a number of reasons. So, first of all, the common heritage is a very powerful existing legal concept. So it is a concept that we have international law and governance and have had for many decades. It was originally developed for exactly the sort of issues that we currently confront. So it was originally developed as a legal concept for a global ecological Commons. And that is for the ocean as one interconnected system. So that was its original scope if you like. And what the common heritage required was that states should act collectively, according to a management regime. And that management regime for the ocean required states to act in an ecologically responsible way, not for their own benefit as states but for the benefit of all humanity and for the benefit of all life. So what the common heritage regime did was recognize the oceans as a precious common inheritance that we all have responsibility for. And what this meant, then, was that the priority for human use of the ocean as an interconnected ecological system, no matter where that use occurred, the priority of that human use became one of managing our activities consistently with achieving ecological benefits for humanity and for all human life. So the focus of common heritage, as it was originally developed, was very much centered on a shared global ecological Commons that we have to manage collectively in a responsible way. To ensure that the ecological Commons flourishes and benefits and that the benefits are enjoyed and shared by all. Now, that doesn't mean that states could not use ocean ecological systems. But the use of those systems, the priority of the use of those systems was to ensure the functioning, the ecological functioning of those ocean systems continued.
Kimberly White
Now, you've said that we need new global governance and law that brings humanity together to achieve ecological benefits. How can the Earth System approach to the Global Pact for the Environment be the conceptual evolution to give sense to these initiatives, goals, and holistic approaches?
Prue Taylor
We've talked already about how Earth System Science helps us understand that we share an interconnected global ecological Commons. And we've also talked about how Earth System Science helps us understand the massive detrimental impact that we're currently having on that shared global commons. What Earth System Science also enables us to comprehend and really, really come to grips with is that we need to take a very transformative approach to law and governance. And by transformative, I mean, we really need to change so that we put the function of the earth system, at the very center of our law and governance framework. And we have to look at that centering and prioritizing of the earth system, in terms of, how do we now work to achieve benefits for the earth system? So this is so radical that we're essentially flipping the objective of our law and governance framework on its head, to be really placing the functioning of the earth system at the core of what we're trying to achieve, and so much at the core that we can't just continue to approach it from a perspective of how can we do what we currently do while doing less harm, but rather, we need to now change that priority to being how do we manage ourselves and everything we do in a way that also returns a benefit to ecological systems and to the earth system. So in simple terms, what Earth System Science can help us better understand in terms of the transformative changes that we have to make, can come down to this we have to start asking ourselves, what can we do for the earth system? Not solely, what does the earth system do for us. And by taking this approach and applying it to the global pact, we can take law and governance beyond a 19th century, 20th-century approach where we consider the problems that we face through the very sort of incremental, narrow, piecemeal focus, essentially of pollution control and wanting to continue business as usual. So all of that could change if we really applied an earth system approach and saw its transformative potential to law and governance andas a new conceptual basisfor the global pact. So another way of understanding this, I like to use the example of farming. A farming example can help understand this transformative change, I think. So a traditional model of a good farmer enabled a farmer to use the land for sustenance and use the land for benefit. But the traditional farmer also understood that their responsibility included ensuring that that use of the land occurred in a way that also built up the health of the soil for present generations and for future generations. So this idea of using resources but also returning a benefit, at the same time to the ecological systems that supported human use, were not mutually exclusive; they were part of a whole system. So use rights are a privilege. And there is a responsibility to ensure the continued health and well being of the whole so that those use rights could continue to deliver human health and well-being. These were not mutually exclusive things they've worked together and in unison. And as that sort of thinking and management of human activities everywhere, at every scale, that we need to return to and Earth System Science helps us to get there.
Kimberly White
Excellent points. And you're absolutely right. It's time to shift away from that business as usual mindset that got us in this mess in the first place. So it's time to, you know, transform our systems and shift towards more sustainable options. Now, speaking of transformation, do you think that we can transform the law to overcome our territorial obsessions so that humanity can exercise at an international level connected responsibility for our impacts on the earth?
Prue Taylor
Yes, we can do this. Yes,we can absolutely do this. But we have to want to do this enough. And we have to want to do this before we are forced to do this. And my concern is, if we don't develop this collective willingness to make these changes, very, very soon, then our opportunities to come together outside of a terrible emergency situation become greatly diminished. So we have a window of opportunity, but we have to recognize that as a window of opportunity and really want to do this. And if we want to do this enough, we can do this. There's nothing, I can't see anything that stands in our way apart from our willingness to do this, and our belief, and our understanding that this will benefit everybody if we do this well together. We can shape a law and governance regime that will be for the benefit of everyone. We can do that. We just have to want to do that badly enough. And we have to believe that human beings can act collectively together for the common good, that we are cooperative, collective thinkers, that we are capable of this. We have to believe in ourselves.
Kimberly White
And you know, I think, internationally right now, we do see some countries, New Zealand being one of them, really at the forefront of climate leadership. As I mentioned earlier, I'm in the U.S., and we've been dealing with a lot of climate inaction. So a lot of that has to do with this political will. And I think we as a civil society, academia, corporate world, etc., we all need to come together to make our voices heard and demand this change. Because at this point,, this is the moment, this is the time for action. We don't have time to waste anymore.
Prue Taylor
Yeah, I also think it's very important that we think about the problems that we have, and we communicate the problems that we have as fundamentally ethical issues and issues of justice, not just scientific issues or economic issues. I mean, that sort of framing, it really creates a barrier to people's willingness to stand up and demand change, right?
Kimberly White
Definitely.
Prue Taylor
I think that's where, you know, some of these youth movements are starting to shake things up, particularly in the climate change context. Because for so long, our ability to collaborate, to you know, really develop responses to climate change have been inhibited because we've been constantly approaching them from the perspective of; what is the science, what are the economic realities, blah, blah, blah, but omitting to really see these issues as very much issues of justice for present and future generations, no matter where those generations are.
Kimberly White
Absolutely, I think we see many of the youth come out, and I think that's been overwhelmingly a positive thing. Because they're forcing us to have those hard conversations that I think we've typically avoided. So we're definitely in an interesting time, especially with COVID. We're starting to see more talk with the recovery efforts, and hopefully, that talk leads to action. Because at this point, we've had a lot of talk, but we need a lot more action. A stable climate is a manifestation of a well-functioning earth system. Can we utilize the common heritage concept to the earth system as a whole? And can the evolution and redefinition of the concept of global commons be the base for a new global legal framework?
Prue Taylor
My answer to that is yes. But a fundamental key to utilizing the common heritage concept is to understand its scope and its intention, as it was originally developed. So we need to understand common heritage as it was originally developed, and as it was initially intended, and not allow ourselves to be distracted by some of the very narrow and limited legal interpretations that emerged around common heritage in the 1970s and the 1980s. So, in short, to unleash the really great potential of the common heritage concept. We need to not be distracted by some of the restricted uses that have been imposed upon it. But to go back to its original scope and its original intention, and to understand that it's at its very essence, common heritage is about collective ecological responsibilities for the benefit of all and that those collective responsibilities, they apply no matter where human activities occur. And what the common heritage concept tells us or reminds us, there's something very, very challenging for traditional international law.Common heritage tells us that territorial sovereignty can no longer be used as a justification to not fulfill those common responsibilities or as a justification for abdication of responsibility. So common heritage really does transform ideas around territorial sovereignty and sovereign rights and imposes upon our understanding of territorial sovereignty, this deep, collective responsibility to work for the benefit of all that does not mean that a state doesn't have sovereignty over its territory; it qualifies the exercise of that territorial sovereignty in a way that ensures, first and foremost a collective benefit is the priority is the objective.
Kimberly White
What was it about the proposal from the Common Home of Humanity that stood out to you and made you decide to join this initiative?
Prue Taylor
What the Common Home of Humanity does is it brings together Earth System Science with law and governance, and it attempts to transform the existing system. So it doesn't try and tweak or compromise our existing law and governance system. It brings these things together in a way that will potentially lead to a transformative change in terms of what are our central priorities, what are our collective responsibilities? How do we get beyond business as usual and focus on returning a benefit to a deeply interconnected but deeply degraded earth system? So it has that potential to really lead very significant transformative change. And that makes it very exciting. And it means to me that we are finally getting to a point where science is coming together with law and governance. And it's coming together in a way that goes beyond enhanced business as usual techniques to changes that are truly, truly transformative because they have put the functioning of the earth system at the very center of everything. We do everything we think about the very, very center of human existence.
When I started researching and writing about international environmental law 30 years ago, I started with a focus on climate change. That was my issue if you like, and at that time, we really didn't have a good understanding of the earth operating as one interconnected system. Right. We tried to use words like a global environment, or a global commons, or Gaia. But you know, we were always kind of struggling with a conceptual framework and a scientific framework around which we could demonstrate that what people and nation states do and don't dowithin their legal territories has a dramatic impact on the whole and therefore is our responsibility and concern of the whole humanity. So, Earth System Science is sort of a bit of when we really understand it as sort of a eureka moment, because it says, well, actually, this does exist. And it does operate in this way. And it is capable of being decimated and degraded, but equally, it is capable of recovery. And, you know, perhaps we have focused a little bit too much on the on, you know, the extent to which we have harmed the earth system. But in talking about returning a benefit, I think, you know, that's not just a nice idea. The fact is that, if we do start returning benefits to these systems, they are capable of recovery; they really are capable of recovery. And so the key message is that by working towards the benefit of a well-functioning earth system, we're not giving up things, losing things; we're actually working towards positive outcomes for everybody. So I think it's a science that helps us focus on the potential of the positive. Right. And that's very powerful. The way we frame our responses to issues like climate change at the moment is always focused on the negative or the incremental and the negative, not the positive, transformative.
Kimberly White
All right, and there you have it. When we look at the situation that we're currently in with the climate crisis and the massive decline in biodiversity and ecological systems, it's clear that we need fundamental change to our law and governance systems. To deny that we need change is to deny reality. And by taking the Earth System approach and applying it to the global pact, we can bring about the transformative changes we need to law and governance for the common good. We can do this. That is all for today, and thank you for joining us for this episode of Common Home Conversations Beyond UN75. Please subscribe, share, and be sure to tune in next week to continue the conversation with our special guest, Richard Ponzio, Director of the Just Security 2020 Program at the Stimson Center. And visit us at www.ThePlanetaryPress.com for more episodes and the latest news in sustainability, climate change, and the environment.
Interview TranscriptTranscribed by Otter AI
Kimberly White
Hello and welcome to Common Home Conversations. Today we are joined by Hindou Ibrahim, Founder and President of the Association for Indigenous Women and Peoples of Chad. Hindou is also the Co-Chair of the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change and a UN SDG Advocate. Thank you for joining us today!
Hindou Ibrahim
It's a pleasure. Thanks for inviting me.
Kimberly White
You have been a steadfast champion for human rights and sustainable development. What was the inspiration behind your lifelong dedication to bettering our planet?
Hindou Ibrahim
Yeah, I mean, I'm so excited to be championing the Sustainable Development Goals because, for me, they are talking about our life. So when we talk from the objective one who is fighting poverty, or to five with the gender, or 13 with climate change, all the 17 of them take us in the partnership. They're talking about how we can improve our life, how we can improve our society, and how we can make it better than now by respecting people in climate. So for me, it is obvious because, from the communities that I come from, we always take all the problems and all the crises together to resolve all of them. So that's why I am so excited to be championing the sustainable development goals for my peoples and for all Indigenous peoples, and at the end of the day, for the planet in general.
Kimberly White
That's wonderful. So we're seeing how climate change is impacting every corner of our planet in many ways. Can you share with us how climate change is affecting your country and your region?
Hindou Ibrahim
So I am coming from the Sahel regions and coming from Chad, who has a very different landscape. We have a hundred percent desert in the north. And we have savannah in the Sahel in the middle. And then we have the tropical forests in the Congo basin in the south. So when you live in the three different ecosystems in a landlock and when your life depends on the ecosystem, you know exactly the impact of climate change. You do not read it in the book or watch it on the TV; you live it. I give you an example of how we are really impacted. We got the research from my organization from 1999 to now, and the chart is already on plus 1.5-degree increase. And why we see that every day, our dry season becomes much longer. With a very, very long sun and heavy sun that's coming up to 50 degrees Celsius. When you go to the desert, it's about 54 degrees Celsius. And that impacts our environment and impacts the rain because the rain season also changed, it's become much shorter and coming with the heavy rain that can flood all the places. For example, this year, where we have all the Sahel under flood. You have even in the townspeople take the canoe to go from one neighborhood to another one. And four months before it was the heat, and the very dry heat where the crops cannot grow. And it will end up with food insecurity because when you don't have regular rain, it cannot penetrate the soil, it cannot leave the vegetation to regenerate. And that impacts the food insecurity of the communities. And at the end of the day, the environmental impact, it's going to change the social life of the people. It creates conflict among the communities that are fighting to get access to the shrinking resources. And one of the examples I give it's around Lake Chad. Lake Chad is the fifth biggest freshwater that we have. Around this lake in 1960, it was 25000 kilometers square of this freshwater shared between Chad, Cameroon, Niger, Nigeria, and the Central African Republic. Now the lake is shrinking to 2000 kilometers square of freshwater. So you have 90% of the water just evaporated because of the heat. And suddenly, there are more than 50 million people whose living is dependent on this fragile ecosystem. They are farmers, they are fishermen and pastoralists from my community. So what do those people have to do? Because they depend on the end of the month's salaries, they depend on the rain. They depend on the ecosystem of this area of lake. So they just fight among themselves to get access to those resources. Some of them become internally displaced; others become refugees. And most of them, especially the youth, become a migrant, cross-border, and then maybe cross the oceans. So the climate is impacting all the single steps of our life in development.
Kimberly White
One of the most powerful change agents overlooked throughout society is women. Studies have shown that women are disproportionately impacted by climate change. According to the United Nations, 21.5 million people are displaced annually by weather hazards worsened by climate change. Out of those displaced, women account for 80%. How are women critical in the fight against the climate crisis?
Hindou Ibrahim
Sure, I mean women are at the front line of the climate change impact. Because when the weather changes, maybe it is just the weather for ordinary people, but for the people who depend on these resources, it is for them, life changing. And especially the woman, because in our communities, women are the ones who are responsible for feeding the communities. So they are the ones who, of course, collect the water, the food, but also traditional medicine. So during the rainy season, we collect all the fruits and all the vegetables that we do have, then dry them up to use them during the dry season, for the entire season. But there is not enough for everyone. So they found themselves fighting just to get access to those resources, who call it food, it is the livelihood for us.
On the other hand, when there is a dry season, and there are not enough resources, the man responds by going away. So when they leave the places, they leave the woman and the children behind who have to fight for the daily best in order to cope and adapt to find the food for their families. So they are really the most vulnerable. And of course, they cannot maybe migrate a long path. And when there is a crisis that comes, like around Lake Chad, when there is the shrinking of the resources, it's also helping the terrorist groups settle there like Boko Haram. And then the violence starts in those places. And the women and children have to take their children and leave the place. In the end, they become internally displaced or a migrant in their own homeland from one region to another one, and then they become the most vulnerable again. It is not the issue that they are climate refugees or whatever. But they are really internal migrants, they are internal refugees in their own home countries, not because of the economic reason, but because of the environment that's degraded and they cannot get any access as they used to, to get food and medicine for their children and ensure the generations.
Kimberly White
That really shows how interconnected everything is- the environment, social issues, and security.
Hindou Ibrahim
Yes, of course, I mean, that's why for us, we cannot talk on all this crisis in silo. Because when we talk about insecurity, talk about the rebellion groups or terrorist groups that take the opportunity. They take the opportunity because they found the people who are already poor. And then they increase this poverty everyday with climate change, and they take the opportunities to distill what they have done. And if a person does not have dignity in these communities, they are ready to do everything in it, or they are forced to make one of two choices. They join them, or they become a migrant running from this place to go to another place. And when they go to another place, there is not enough work for everyone, and they become again the most vulnerable. So insecurity, climate change, poverty, lack of development, all those issues are interlinkages. We cannot respond to the insecurity as just giving a gun and having soldiers around if we do not work around the development of the communities. And we cannot also wait until the crisis comes and respond as humanitarian, giving the food aid and that’s it. So it is not also a sustainable way. The three pillars work together. They are the security issues, the development issues, and then the humanitarian issues. All those need to be at the same level in order to help the people go out from the impact of insecurity that they have. Then, at the top, we have to all fight climate change in order to give the future to those communities.
Kimberly White
You make an excellent point- globally, we’ve discussed many of these issues in their respective silos. However, as we can see throughout the world, and in your region, these issues are all interconnected- so it is imperative that we take this into account when developing plans of action and solutions. Can you discuss the importance of preserving and sharing traditional knowledge and its role in helping current science and technology provide solutions to the climate and biodiversity crises?
Hindou Ibrahim
So while Indigenous communities, in many Indigenous communities are, or I can say, all Indigenous communities that depend on nature. And I give you the example of my own people, that we depend on the rainfall. We live from one place to another one to find water in pastures. And that's given us the unique opportunity to live in harmony with our ecosystem.
To understand nature, to live with this nature, for centuries and thousands of years. So we learn from each species of nature, from the clouds, from the wind, from all the insects, flowers, plants, our own cattles, who give us a lot of information. And from all those, we build our traditional knowledge, we build our wisdom, and that helps us to build our resilience. But traditional knowledge is also ecosystem-based. I give you the examples like when we come to the west or like they say oh, in the Sahel, you have like three seasons, one rain season, dry season, and then maybe a cold season that is disappearing because of climate change. But in our communities, like the people who are living between the Sahara and the savannas, there are six seasons. Those who are living between savannas and tropical forests, there are seven seasons. All those seasons are based on each ecosystem we have and it's helped us to develop a unique traditional knowledge to adapt and build our resilience to all the climate change. Because they are very old knowledge, they are centuries of knowledge. And then we can use them if we respect them, we understand them, and we give them the same level of recognition as science knowledge. We cannot have the science who can confirm the traditional knowledge. It cannot work like that. Science cannot confirm it because Indigenous peoples' traditional knowledge are since thousands of years, and science knowledge was discovered after that. So there is no way that they confirm because they just don't know how to write it, how to read it. And they do not know how to read our languages or, or how to write our languages. And our language plays a big role in our knowledge. So that's why it is important to work hand in hand with science knowledge and traditional knowledge in order to empower each other and then to get support to build the resilience for the people, not to make a report, but to build resilience for the peoples.
Kimberly White
I recently saw a quote about how we look at nature-based solutions now like they're this new thing, but Indigenous communities had the original nature-based solutions. They've been saying these things for centuries.
Hindou Ibrahim
Exactly. I mean, when the people discover the new word, that's also what I'm saying all the climate change movement, they love a new word. Each year, there is a new word. So it is not having a sexy word that can resolve the climate issues. It is understanding what is happening that can help us resolve it. When they say, oh nature-based solution, can add 30% of the solution to climate change. We are like, well, that's what we are trying to tell you for many years. We are trying to tell you that our nature plays a big role in restoring all the ecosystems and having a solution to climate change. And the nature-based solution they're calling it, for us, it's our way of life. It's our way of living. And when like my community, as nomadic, they live from one place to another one all the time.
Our cows helpedto fertilize the land, and when we came back, we found the water in the pastures. So this is the nature-based solution because it's created in a natural way in this circular way that we respect our environment and the environment gives us in return also what we need: food, medicine, and all the necessities for our survival. The sad part of it, they wanted to put a price on nature-based solutions. Nature is not a business. We cannot put a price on nature. If we ask someone how much you cost yourself, they're like, why are we putting a price on the people? So okay, nature also has rights. We cannot put a price as money, as cash in nature. We have to put our wisdom, we have to know how we can live in harmony with this nature. And that is also called a nature-based solution. So they need to understand the wisdom of living in harmony with nature in order to give this nature a break to build resilience for all of us and take all the planet to the level that we want on 1.5 degrees.
Kimberly White
Absolutely. Our lives and our livelihoods depend on nature; it's the most valuable thing that we have. And that's why it's so important that we work towards these goals together. Now, you're the founder of AFPAT. Can you tell us more about this and how the coalition is working to empower Indigenous communities?
Hindou Ibrahim
Yes, I founded the AFPAT, which is the Association for Indigenous Women and Peoples of Chad, when I was very young. I founded it when I finished primary school. And then it gets official authorization when I get 15 years old. And the reason that for me, it's how I can fight for the rights of the girls who have my age at that time, and who do not have all the rights that they deserve. And I understood that I cannot talk about human rights without talking about environmental rights because in my community, all is the same. Human rights and environmental rights are the same. If you violate the right of the environment, you are violating the rights of the human being that lives there. And that has been our two objectives; protection and promotion of human rights in Indigenous people's rights and protection of the environment through the treaty ofconventions on climate change, biodiversity, and desertification. So when we have this objective for us, it is how we can make a concrete action to the communities; how we can empower women and girls; and how we can work with the communities to make them understand what is happening at the international level. And also take the needs of the communities to the international level in order to make the right decision. So how can we build all this bridge between the two different worlds?
We did many activities. So empowering women is one of them. So giving the woman the revenue, for example, we did an activity that helped the woman to transform the product that they have in their hands. Some of them have only the small meals they planted by hand, that transform it by hand. There was nothing in all this process that supported them; everything was done by hands. And then that takes them a lot of time, especially during this climate change impact, because they do not have any time for themselves to manage between not having water or having food or going to transform the meals that they feed their families. So they are the ones who will be waking up very early in the morning and sleeping the last. So for us, it is very important to help them develop the activities that help them to mitigate all the suffering that they do have.
So we gave them some training and some machines that helped them to transform these meals. And when they did that, they own a lot of revenue, they own time, and it helped them to use the revenue that they have even to put their children in school. It was a dream for so many years. So it's helping them adapt to climate change, helping them build resilience with all the projects we are giving them. On the other hand, we work with all the community on land rights because it is very important that we talk about nature-based solutions, talk about climate change, and environmentaldegradation and all, but we do not talk about land. Because if you don't have land, you have nothing. And that sent me to the point where there is like a World Bank who elaborates the level of poverty. They say if your living is below $5 a day, you are poor. I say no. When you come to my community, you can have your $5; if you have nothing to buy with it, you are called poor. But if you have land, you are not poor, because the land can produce something for you. So that's helped us to work on land rights. And we create a 3D participatory mapping, which is a model that helps the communities who didn't go to school to come together with the science knowledge. Build the map, figure out the traditional knowledge, help to map where are the corridors, where are the water points, and how they can better manage the natural resources that they have, for the long way and how they can also mitigate the conflict that they have with the communities.
And this 3D participatory mapping in a pastoral land in then in a very big area, it's just like the first one we did. It's really worked well. It gives the government the chance to say, “Oh if there is an organization like AFPAT who did this mapping. So as a government, we can do more.” It’s helped them to make a decision to reopen 60,000 kilometers of corridors. They start doing it better. The project that was funded by the African Development Bank. So it's ending up like a good advocacy for us. So we also did like, education is very important for us, but education that can respect the needs of the communities who cannot just come and dictate what the peoples can do, like Eastern France, or the US or whatever. But who can help how communities can better manage the resources and how they can just like integrate themselves in the new development pathway that we are having.
So this project also has been very important for us in helping the women and girls to think about the school is not only for the boys, but it is very important for all the people equally, including the young woman. So I mean, we have a lot of projects we have going on, we work on the COVID, of course, because it is the time that it's happening, and we cannot leave our communities behind. So we start seeing how we can design a better model for them to help them understand what is happening. Because COVID is not a thing that everyone knows, it is a new thing with a lot of barriers that come from languages like- you need to wash your hands. People who do not have clean water to drink, they cannot wash their hands; they cannot get this access. So we try to help with how they can get the access at least to protect themselves and how we can also build our own governance system to reinforce our knowledge, our elders to protect them from all that is happening. And from this one, we work at the international level where we do advocacy on climate change, biodiversity, desertification convention, and on human rights to help the decision making not leave behind the voice of our communities. So we show them the evidence of the project that we do on the ground. And then we refuse that they take the decision that is crude or harm our peoples back home. But it is not an easy task because they are not listening always.
Kimberly White
I can’t even begin to fathom how difficult it has been with COVID-19 for these communities. It has been difficult here in the United States and the people here have more access to things like clean water and PPE. As far as governments not always listening, I think that’s something that a lot of people can relate to around the world- especially when it comes to climate change. We’re seeing climate denial here in the U.S., Australia, Brazil. What you’re doing at AFPAT is amazing. A great example of embracing sustainable development. Speaking of- you were named a UN SDG Advocate. Can you tell us a little bit more your role and what you’ve been doing with that?
Hindou Ibrahim
Yeah, I'm so proud and happy to be among the 17 SDG Advocates. So the Sustainable Development Goals design the life of all of us in some way. It's adopted by all the UN countries, and why I accept to be an advocate is to give access to those who are left behind, because one thing about SDGs is leaving no one behind. And if we don’t want to leave anyone behind, we have to include the people left behind to be at the tables of decision making, and then say, if the things are not working, and then to say how they think that the things should work. So that's why I am an SDG advocate. I'm carrying the voice for my people of all the other Indigenous peoples around the world. How we are seeing the development, how we are seeing the sustainability, and how it should work. It gives me the opportunity to talk with the heads of state with many people that are decision-makers and telling them that you cannot make the decision anymore without including our peoples; without including our voices, it has to be us. And another thing for me about SDGs is how we can localize the SDGs. We cannot only talk about them at the international level and ask the government to go and report back and monitor and say we did that. We are at this level. So it has to be localized, it has to be inclusive, it has to be the SDGs talking about people, about the planet. And that is what I'm fighting for all my life. We cannot talk about people without planet; we cannot talk about climate without people. How can we make it a people's center of all the decision making? So that's why I like being an SDG Advocate. It gives me the opportunity to defend and then gives ideas of how as Indigenous peoples, we think that the SDGs can be implemented and how it can be fair in leaving no one behind, include everyone in it. And now we have only ten years. So this decade, we have to work very hard, all of us, to make the SDGs realized. And I think there is an opportunity around the world when we start including all peoples, and then we can make the SDGs localized, and we can make them happen.
Kimberly White
Absolutely. It is a make it or break it moment for sure with climate change. We need all hands on deck, from the individual to the Indignous communities, to the business to the local government to the national government. We need everyone because this is truly a problem that affects everyone. So it's essential that everyone's included in that discussion. So during these unprecedented times with COVID-19, the biodiversity crisis, and the climate crisis, do you believe change at the global level is possible and what should be the role of a new global pact for the environment?
Hindou Ibrahim
The change is possible. The change is possible because the world showed us overnight how COVID-19 came and changed life in general. So if we all agree that we can fight the COVID together, not in silo, we do have the hope to fight all the rest of the crises. So when COVID came, you know, all the countries agreed to lockdown together. They agree to put the measures to protect the people first, but one thing they all agree on is the food shipping. So all of them open the borders to have the food. So they understand they are not auto sufficient. They are not sovereign in the foods. So they need each other in order to succeed. And then it also helped people to understand that living in solidarity is very important. So then they start to understand that our community is very important for all of us to act together. So that gives me the hope that we can act globally when we talk all on the same level. So it's coming to the same global action we are calling for, for all because health is part of the SDGs. And when we talk about the green recovery, it means that the climate, the biodiversity, the oceans, the water, all have to be in the center. It comes back to the SDGs. So all those moments, gives me more hope that the world may be finally can open the eyes and focus on the most urgent needs of our time, focusing on peoples and planet, focusing on rebuilding the relationship with nature, focusing on restoring and living in harmony with nature and learning from Indigenous People's way of life on how we are doing it for centuries of life, centuries of years. So I think the hope is there.
What is missing is a political will. What is missing is the action-oriented. So we need the direct action to the communities, to those who are the most vulnerable, most impacted by all the crises, when it comes to climate or biodiversity or COVID, those who are the most vulnerable, Indigenous peoples, women, children, are always the front lines. People with disabilities, of course, are always on the front lines. So when we take action-oriented to those communities to not leave them behind, I think we can resolve all those global problems together. And we need also to do it by the political will. If the politicians are still thinking about how they can recover their economy, they forget that we cannot have a sustainable economy without a green planet or without respecting the rights of each of us without justice, inclusiveness, and no marginalization. So they cannot make it. So the political will need to be there to fight inequality, to fight injustice, to make the improvements a reality, and then we can do it all together. And to fund this, they talk a lot about a lot of billions that they wanted to inject into the economy. But all what they are talking- they are making the same mistake. They want to inject that money into the big industry that exists already. Because for them, it is easy to monitor because they exist already. They have all the portfolios to welcome the billions that they wanted to give them and inject again, and they make the rich again much richer. They are creating a gap. So this political leadership needs to change, to turn all those billions to give to those most vulnerable, and to build their capacity to have the equity.
We all saw the last report of Oxfam on inequality. This report shows that the more rich are rich again two times than before. Because all the political leadership is giving them again, more power, again, more money, creating the gap between those who are the most vulnerable with those who are already rich, so this one needs to be torn down. It needs to be based on equity and justice. So those two things are really missing. If we have them, we can tackle all the global crises that we have.
Kimberly White
You're absolutely right. So how would recognizing our global commons help boost the much-needed change we need to combat the climate crisis and the other crisis we're facing?
Hindou Ibrahim
So how we cangive rights in an equal way to the oceans to the water to the trees and to the human being and how we can respect each other. Our global common also is how we can share in an equitable way the resources that we have, how we can sustain them, and how we can call it the global commons because we all depend on it. I am coming from a landlocked country, but I am advocating also for the oceans. I am passionate about oceans. I want to see this ecosystem that we are impacting and try my best to protect this ecosystem. So this one I'm calling it our global common not only because you live on it directly, or you depend on it directly, that you have to protect it, but you need to protect it because it's creating in one or another way, your life better. And as well as the glaciers are only talking about my Indigenous brothers and sisters from the Arctic, and I went to the glaciers, I saw the glacier with my own eyes, just to witness it. And then to say there is no way that we destroyed this ecosystem because it's playing a big role in all our life. Even though I'm not coming from the Arctic. So the global commons needs to be understood by all the humanity that it is for all of us. If we destroy one of them, we destroy tropical forests, our life going to be destroyed, we destroy the ocean, our life will be destroyed, if we destroy the savannas, the glaciers, our life is going to be destroyed. It is our global common and we have all the duty to protect it, whether we come from it, or we do not come from it, we have the duty to protect it and to respect it. So that's how I'm seeing we can all come together and promote it and respect it.
Kimberly White
I have lived in Alaska, and I've seen the glaciers melting, and it's happening at a much faster rate than science initially anticipated. Seeing all of these ecosystem changes, you know, we're seeing how people are impacted and how the wildlife is impacted. It's just, it's crazy to see, and it's very sad to see. So how do you think that proposal from the Common Home of Humanity, this global legal framework, will help initiatives like the Paris Agreement, like a global deal for nature and provide that foundation and create a system of accountancy?
Hindou Ibrahim
Yes, I mean, actually, the Paris agreements, or the SDGs. So we decided together and in countries come together and decided and endorsed it. They sign it, but they need to implement it. So the time of advocating on doing it, it's finished. So they need to implement it. And to implement it, we need also another global framework to match.If you destroy nature, you will be judged for this, this treatment, and then you have to be accountable for it. What will happen if you destroy it, will like a country or a nation take the responsibility? What will happen? So the people need to act if the government cannot act, so people must act to protect the rest of us. So it has to be a people movement who can accompany all the implementation of the global agreement that we do have.
Kimberly White
All right, and there you have it. We cannot talk about people without the planet, and we cannot talk about climate without people. It is time to open our eyes and focus on the most urgent needs of our time, focus on people, and the planet. It is our duty to protect and respect our global commons. The COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting green recovery efforts have shown us that change is possible. The legal framework proposed by the Common Home of Humanity would provide us with a way to recognize our global commons and create a system of accountancy, helping us to achieve the ambitious goals and targets needed to combat the climate crisis. That is all for today, and thank you for joining us for this episode of Common Home Conversations Beyond UN75. Please subscribe, share, and be sure to tune in next week to continue the conversation with our special guest, Prue Taylor, Deputy Director of the New Zealand Centre for Environmental Law. And visit us at www.ThePlanetaryPress.com for more episodes and the latest news in sustainability, climate change, and the environment.
Interview TranscriptTranscribed by Otter AI
Kimberly WhiteHello and welcome to Common Home Conversations. Today we are joined by Professor Kim Sang-Hyup, Founder of the Coalition for Our Common Future, President of the Jeju Research Institute, and visiting professor at the Graduate School of Green Growth at KAIST. Thank you for joining us today! So, you were appointed as the Blue House Future Vision Secretary in 2008 and contributed to Korea’s historic low carbon green growth vision. Later in 2011, you became the Senior Secretary to the President for Green Growth. Please tell us more about these experiences.
Professor Kim Sang-HyupYeah, well, to make a long story short, the low carbon green growth was a new paradigm of Korea. And the idea is very simple. It is about combating climate change very aggressively and ambitiously and also transforming the challenges by climate change into new opportunities. We thought we could have double-digit trillion opportunities by achieving low carbon green growth worldwide, not to mention Korea. And it was announced in the year 2008, in celebration of Korea’s national independence day, that was in August. But only a month later, if you remember it, the Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy. And then, the global financial crisis began all around the world. So only a month later, after the proclamation of low carbon green growth of Korea, many people said Korea would be the fastest sinking ship, even before it started the new national vision. However, the President of Korea at the time, Mr. Lee Myung Bak, thought differently. We fought that with the New Deal projects. It was about a $50 billion scale stimulus package, but that was to prepare the future low carbon infrastructure. It was about creating a resilient water infrastructure. It was about creating green energy infrastructure and transport structures. By exercising that large scale stimulus package in the name of the Green New Deal, we created more than 700,000 jobs. And also, it created a great enhancement of green technology competitiveness. But what was really important, by exercising that Green New Deal measure, we set up a target for the first time throughout the Korean industrial history, a target to cut greenhouse emissions that was minus 4 percent cut by the year 2020. And throughout the Green New Deal, Korea could reduce the emission growth rate from 10 percent, that was in 2010. In 2012, it went down to almost zero. That was a remarkable achievement. And besides that, we also tried to institutionalize Green Growth not to be hindered by the political regime change. So we laid out very important legal frameworks. A basic act for low carbon green growth, an act for green buildings, an act for smart grid, and more than anything else, we made a legal framework for emission trading scheme. That was the first of its kind in Asia that was later on followed by China. And also, we try to institutionalize our Green Growth efforts. That’s how we came up with the new international organization, the Global Green Growth Institute, that was initiated by Korea and many countries of like-minded groups.
We could also host the GCF headquarters, one of the very important new architecture of the UN. GCF stands for Green Climate Fund. We competed with Germany and Switzerland, but I believe we hosted the headquarters of GCF. So we institutionalized and we internationalized Green Growth during the period of my service at the Blue House. But politics always matter after the political regime change. The succeeding government didn’t seem to like the Green Growth very much. So it didn’t continue well. And the emission growth rate began to go up. That’s not a happy story. But I will tell you later, but we have a Green New Deal, again, facing the pandemic crisis. So I do think we still have hope. Yeah, that’s how I remember our efforts in the term that I worked for the public community in Korea.
Kimberly WhiteWell, that’s really impressive. I think a lot of us can relate to the regime change when environmental efforts aren’t necessarily always supported. And we must have that political will to recognize climate change and take action because it’s affecting all of us. So it’s essential without a doubt. You are also the Founder of the Coalition for our Common Future. Can you tell us more about this initiative?
Professor Kim Sang-HyupYeah. Thank you very much for asking that question. You know, Our Common Future itself is the title of the very famous report, which is the Brundtland report on sustainability that was back in 1987, more than 40 years ago. So Our Common Future is a widely known subject to many people in the world. But the Coalition of Our Common Future reflects the idea that our efforts should be interconnected all around the world. That should be connected. That’s why I picked the name coalition, solidarity, whatever you may say. So we need more cooperation around the world. That’s the meaning of the social entity for Our Common Future. And there are two important signature projects, or you can call it lighthouse projects. One is the Green Big Bang projects. The idea is to have green energy, green mobility, and green technology work together in a very interoperable way and to move faster and bigger. That’s for creating a new industrial ecosystem in a low carbon manner. The other important project is the project for the young generation; we call it Voice from the Young. Because I believe young generations are the real stakeholders in this era. We are trying to empower young generations and give them chances to be real stakeholders, and hopefully, decision makers. And Climate Scouts is one of the projects reflecting that spread. We are nurturing university students and supporting young students to help younger people, elementary school students through the learning relay process. That’s one of the projects the Coalition for Our Common Future is doing. And I think that is exactly in line with the initiative of the Common Home of Humanity.
Kimberly WhiteI love what you’re doing, and I think we see the youth really speaking up these days. So it’s great that you’re working with them and working with them on climate and empowering them for those future decisions. That’s fantastic. So how would the proposal from the Common Home of Humanity help achieve these goals and contribute to the realization of a sustainable future?
Professor Kim Sang-HyupWell, you know, when somebody breaks into your home, then he should be, he should get some penalty. Is that right?
Kimberly WhiteYes. Yeah, definitely.
Professor Kim Sang-HyupYeah, yeah, if somebody breaks into your home, then he will be heavily penalized. But yeah, I actually think that the earth system is our home. And the idea is really appealing. The diplomatic negotiations on climate change began in 1995, in the name of the Conference of Parties, that was held in Berlin, Germany. And I attended the Conference of Parties, the Copenhagen Climate Summit in Denmark in 2009, since then I have never missed the Annual Conference of Parties on Climate Change.
Kimberly WhiteThat’s impressive.
Professor Kim Sang-HyupYeah, yeah. But during those 25 long years of diplomacy on climate change, yeah, we have a Paris Agreement on climate change. That is really a remarkable thing. But to my sorrow, with that agreement, our global greenhouse gas emissions are still increasing. This year is an exception due to the coronavirus, maybe about 6 or 7 percent minus. And it’s not because we made the right political choice, it is because of the pandemic we didn’t invite. Having said that, what is it? What does it mean, the Conference of Parties? What are the parties? To the international law and international system, the parties are just a nation-state, sovereign nation-state.
And let’s think about it. Are sovereign nation-states truly interested in combating global climate change? Maybe and maybe not. But if you look at history, nation-states are born to protect the self-interest of territory, something like that is not designed to combat the global commons, such as climate change. So we need a new approach. And that’s why I strongly bind with the spirit of the CHH, the Common Home of Humanity, embracing global commons as our true common problem.
So, in that regard, this is the very high time for us to give serious thought to giving sovereign subjects on the earth system itself, the best legal entity, to our planet. Yes, so that’s the virtue of the CHH. It’s not going to be easy at all, but we should do it. We must overcome this kind of respective individual self-interest of national actors around the world by having a broader, bigger, comprehensive concept. That is, in my eyes, what CHH is trying to do.
Kimberly WhiteAbsolutely. And I think with the climate crisis, and now COVID-19, we see that these big global issues, they don’t recognize borders, they don’t recognize territories. So it’s essential that we have a legal framework that recognizes our Earth system, as you know, not something that’s so divided up. So speaking of climate change, can you tell us how the climate crisis is impacting Korea? And can you share some examples of what you’re seeing?
Professor Kim Sang-HyupYeah, of course. In general, Korea’s temperature rise is about two times higher than the world average. And the sea level rise is also about two times higher than the world average. And Jeju, in which I am living, is exposing the very vivid dramatic case of climate change that is affecting Korea. Well, I wonder if you heard about the binomial name, Abies Koreana, which is a kind of Korean Christmas tree. Those trees are growing largely, lots of Korean Christmas trees are growing in the Hallasan mountain of Jeju. And many countries are really fond of Korean-style Christmas trees, which is a kind of needle-leaved tree. I was really shocked to learn many Korean Christmas trees are dying. They’re withering away due to climate change. It was a very shocking, crappy story, which I recently learned. And about a month ago, I experienced typhoons, which is a Korean hurricane. Within just ten days, I experienced three Korean typhoons. And one of the strongest was known as Maysak. In one day, the amount of rainfall was more than 1000 millimeters. In some parts of the Jeju area, the rainfall amount was about 1000 millimeters, which is more than half of Korea’s annual rainfall. Yeah, so we are experiencing extreme cases of weather due to climate change. And another thing, you are living in Florida, right?
Kimberly WhiteYes.
Professor Kim Sang-HyupAnd Jeju has a very wonderful seaside. We have a wonderful sea around Jeju Island. You know for your information Korea belongs to a mild temperate climate region. But nowadays, Korea is turning into a semi-tropical region. In the case of Jeju under the sea, frankly, I’ve never been on a dive under the sea, but according to experienced divers, we are seeing a kind of tropical marine scene under the sea due to climate change. And so Jeju is turning into a tropical area. And according to the recent IPCC report, IPCC, as you know, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, from the mid 21st century, this century, there will be no winter in Jeju. We are going to have a long summer and a very short spring and fall. Korea used to have a very clear cut four seasons. Spring, summer, fall, and winter. Fall is my favorite season. But we are going to no longer enjoy the four seasons anymore. That’s so sad. Yeah, that’s what I’m experiencing.
Kimberly WhiteThat is sad. I used to live in Alaska. So I’ve seen drastic climate change in both Alaska and Florida. And you mentioned the Christmas trees. In Alaska, we’ve seen vast expanses of spruce trees die because of spruce bark beetles. And the reason for that is climate change. As the winters became milder, it allowed the insects to flourish and expand their territory.
Professor Kim Sang-HyupYeah, that’s true. How is the sea in Florida? Is the coral okay? Is it now turning white? How’s the seaside? How’s the sea of Florida where you live?
Kimberly WhiteWe are seeing some coral bleaching and we’re seeing some other major impacts with an increased frequency of hurricanes and flooding. Sea level rise is a major issue here. Some studies have indicated that Florida has more to lose from sea level rise than anywhere else in the country. We’re seeing a big increase in algal blooms, too, and that is caused by another big issue we face, nutrient pollution, and exacerbated by climate change.
Professor Kim Sang-HyupI’m conducting an interview with you.
Kimberly WhiteI know, we switched spots here- what happened? Well, let’s get back into what you’re seeing. During the Korean National Assembly earlier this year, 98 percent of your nation’s local governments declared a climate emergency, the largest declaration of its kind to date. What are your thoughts on this declaration? And how will this help drive climate action moving forward?
Professor Kim Sang-HyupWell, politicians are very good at speaking good words, but not very good at real actions. And I think that is not an exception in Korea. Well, as I briefly told you earlier, Korea came up with a very large scale new deal projects in the name of Korea’s New Deal. That is more than a 100 billion US dollar scale. And almost half of them are about the Green New Deal. I call it the second round of Green New Deal. But up until now, the Green New Deal has no emission reduction target yet. It only aspires to vote with the net-zero carbon of the international community. So I would be really happy if the Korean government, along with the National Assembly, come up with the real target for the Green New Deal. That’s what I would like to see. That’s where I would love to join. As the head of the UN, Mr. Guterres, has rightly pointed out the substantial solution to this pandemic is to create a clean and green transition for our sustainable future.
So in that regard, we, not just Korean lawmakers or Congressmen, all of us should come up with a real target that is aligned with the net-zero global goals. That’s what I would like to see.
Kimberly WhiteAbsolutely, and I think worldwide we need to see that. So I know you dove into this a little bit earlier, but I want to get back into it because I think that what you’re working on is such a unique initiative. In your role as President of Jeju Research Institute, you’ve been working on some new green policy. Can you tell us what the Green Big Bang is and what you’re hoping to accomplish?
Professor Kim Sang-HyupYes, I’m closely working with the Jeju Governor Won Hee-Ryong for that. And the idea of Green Big Bang, as I told you, it’s very simple. We just need to move faster and bigger and now like a big bang, like the big bang, the birth of the universe. So we really should be really, really fast and aggressive and ambitious. And Jeju is the case. Jeju has set up a carbon-free island by 2030. Here what I mean carbon-free is simply the same as carbon neutral. And how can we achieve that? Jeju is going to replace all the vehicles into electric vehicles and eco-friendly vehicles. More than 300,000 vehicles are running in Jeju. And to achieve that, by 2030 internal combustion engines will be prohibited. New registry of the internal combustion engine will be banned. And we are going to produce all the energy with renewables, yes 100 percent renewables. That was announced at the Paris Climate Summit. And throughout the Green Big Bang audacious efforts during those five years, more than 20,000 electric vehicles are now running in Jeju. It started from almost scratch. And the renewable energy penetration rate is about 15 percent. We can say that the numbers are not enough to accomplish carbon zero by 2030, but that’s why we are so glad to see another round of the Green New Deal. Throughout this opportunity, about $10 billion will be invested, including private investment. And new technologies and new approaches will be applied. For example, we are going to introduce V2G next year. V2G means vehicle to grid. In Jeju, we have developed a smart grid system. If we introduce V2G, vehicle to grid, then the electric vehicle will upload electricity when the electricity tariff is high, playing as a kind of peak time management player. And when the electricity tariff is low, then the electric vehicle will download electricity from the grid. So that’s how you strike a balance in a green way. And also, Jeju’s going to build an infrastructure for new mobility, etc. And there are many, many stories I’d like to share with you. But that would be too lengthy, but by taking advantage of Korea’s Green New Deal, Jeju is going to be a new frontier for carbon-free or carbon-neutral, net-zero carbon society. Yeah, that’s what Green Big Bang in Jeju is about.
Kimberly WhiteThat is very impressive, and I’m interested in the vehicle to grid. I think that sounds really cool. And this is definitely something I think we need to see a lot more of, so you guys are really leading the way.
Professor Kim Sang-HyupWell, Korea is rather good at moving fast. So once we really set up a good direction, I am sure Korea can move fast, and Korea has developed very good digital and ICT technologies. This is the time when energy and mobility meet together with that kind of heightened technology. And I think Korea can do that if it is really determined and set a kind of example for the world community. And to do that, as you pointed out, political will does matter. We can mobilize, we should, and we can mobilize all the resources.
Kimberly WhiteExcellent. Yeah, I think it’s great and definitely an example for the global community to follow. I’m excited to see how everything plays out and to follow your work on Jeju Island. The next question I have is on the Common Home of Humanity. What do you think the global pact for the environment should address? And in your opinion, how will the proposal from the Common Home of Humanity better address the climate crisis?
Professor Kim Sang-HyupWell, as you know, there is no global, central authority. There is no global hierarchy, there’s no global government to deal with this kind of unprecedented existential challenge that is climate change. Having said that, yeah, we have a Paris Agreement that is great. Even a professor or expert like Daniel Yergin, one of the most important experts on energy, says, the world history will be divided before Paris and after Paris. But to my eyes, the Paris Agreement is wonderful, but that’s not enough. And we should integrate all the important parts of the environmental agenda. So that’s the beauty of the global pact for the environment. And which to my eyes should go beyond the borders, as you mentioned. But if you look at the reality of the international political system that is governed by sovereign nation-states, it is not easy at all to achieve that global environmental pact. That’s why the movement led by civil society like CHH is really important.
So at this moment, I think, let the citizens of the world know much better and much deeper about the initiative about the cause of the CHH, including the media you are in charge of.
The world is scattered. And the role of CHH is to integrate those scattered dots together. And to raise public global awareness is really important at this stage. And to my knowledge, it is aligned with the UN75 movement. It’s a good sign, it’s a good sign. So two years later, maybe in 2022, we are going to celebrate that meaningful Stockholm conference. Looking at the time spent, we should appreciate every member of the UN and not just the UN but all the citizens of the world to know better the CHH.
And to achieve the goal, I think the planetarization of consciousness is truly important. And to achieve that, we may need a kind of new school for planetary consciousness. Seven years ago in Korea, we set up a great new school of green growth, KAIST. KAIST is one of the best universities, not just in Korea but in East Asia. But that’s just the beginning. I would like to see CHH exercised more powerfully in terms of global public awareness, and I will be in line with that. In early November, we are going to hold the Jeju Forum, which is quite well known in Asia.
And throughout the Jeju Forum, I’m going to organize a session for the CHH and also for the Coalition for our Common Future. In other words, simply put, we must cooperate together in the end to achieve that global environmental pact.
I don’t think it will be resolved in this decade. It may require two or three more decades to achieve that global treaty, global pact. Anyways, we should start right now, if not now, then when? Okay, that’s how I view, and I greatly admire the efforts being done by CHH, including the Planetary Press, the CEO, Kimberly White.
Kimberly WhiteThank you for that and for your efforts as well! Do you have anything else you’d like to share with our audience?
Professor Kim Sang-HyupOh, yeah, yeah. Yeah, let me remind you, the famous line that was done several decades ago. If not now, then when? And if not us, then who? And that’s the line. I like to remind you. Let’s do it together.
Kimberly WhiteAll right, and there you have it. History shows us that nation-states are born to protect the self-interest of territory, not to combat issues such as climate change that impact our global commons. While it might not be easy, we need a broader, more comprehensive approach and a new legal framework that embraces our global commons, allowing us to face these unprecedented challenges together. That is all for today, and thank you for joining us for this episode of Common Home Conversations Beyond UN75. Please subscribe, share, and be sure to tune in next week to continue the conversation with our special guest, Hindou Ibrahim, President of the Association for Indigenous Women and Peoples of Chad. And visit us at www.ThePlanetaryPress.com for more episodes and the latest news in sustainability, climate change, and the environment.
Interview TranscriptTranscribed by Otter AI
Kimberly White
Hello and welcome to Common Home Conversations. Today we are joined by Janene Yazzie, Co-Convenor of the Indigenous Peoples Major Group on Sustainable Development. Thank you for joining us, Janene. Please tell us more about your work as Co-Convenor of the Indigenous Peoples Major Group on Sustainable Development of the UN High-Level Political Forum on the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals?
Janene Yazzie
Yes, the International Indian Treaty Council and Tebtebba Foundation really organized themselves to get involved with the beginning of the discussions around the Sustainable Development Goals. And our colleagues Galena and Roberto Borrero were really at the forefront of ensuring in the negotiations around the development of the SDGs that Indigenous peoples were included. And because of that work and the recognition of the shift from the Millennium Development Goals to the Sustainable Development Goals was a shift meant to increase participation of stakeholders and other civil society organizations. It became very apparent for our organizations and our two colleagues that we had to be participating in the development of the metrics and the development of the processes for meeting the Sustainable Development Goals. And so because of them, Indigenous peoples are mentioned throughout different aspects of the goals and the metrics that were created to measure progress towards implementation. The Tebtebba Foundation and International Indian Treaty Council became recognized as the co-conveners of the Indigenous Peoples Major Groups. We're one of nine civil society organizations and major groups that are recognized and that engaged with the high level political forum on the SDGs. And through that work, we ensure the participation of Indigenous representatives from all of the seven social-cultural regions recognized by the UN. And we facilitate their participation in expert group meetings in high-level discussions during the HLPF as well as all of the other side events that happened with other mechanisms. And in this manner, we ensure that the countries that do submit voluntary national reports. Countries that are developing processes and mechanisms nationally to address the goals outlined in the 2030 agenda are also being held accountable to the Indigenous peoples that reside within their territories. And it's been a lot of slow work for a while.
I think it's taken a while for this mechanism to find its footing and for the high level political forum to really be structured and organized in a way to make it meaningful. And it's been an uphill battle to increase and advocate for meaningful participation in the actual decision making processes of the high level political forum. But just in the past three years that I've been involved in learning about the history and the development of the Indigenous Peoples Major Group and our involvement with the SDGs, we're seeing a great shift of the streams of work, of the way that the SDGs are being picked up more and more by different countries, and even how the work all of the streams of work are being collaborated across the different UN mechanisms. So it's an exciting time. Obviously, with COVID-19, it made our issues much more difficult to get addressed. One of the things we've learned as being co-convenors of the Indigenous Peoples Major Group is that so many of our Indigenous peoples and the communities they come from lack access to critical community infrastructure, especially internet and cell service. And so with the COVID-19 pandemic, we faced some extraordinary barriers and challenges to keeping momentum behind increasing meaningful participation in the high level political forum and in the expert group meetings on the different Sustainable Development Goals.
So we've been working very hard to get resources, financial or otherwise, to some of our most vulnerable communities. To somehow support them getting hooked up to the internet, or to service that can allow them to continue the work that we've been doing collectively across our different regions. And it's through that collaboration that we really find our strength as Indigenous peoples, you know, like all of our communities are on the frontlines of the impacts of climate change, of environmental degradation, of unsustainable development, and development schemes that are harmful to our ecosystem functions and to the continuance of our traditional lifeways. And so by serving as co-convener, we really serve as like the facilitators of organizing our movement and advocating collectively for our rights in these spaces.
Kimberly White
Well, you're doing such important work- it's fantastic. And like you said, Indigenous peoples are on the frontlines of climate change. We're seeing it impact all corners of our planet. Can you tell us how climate change is affecting the Navajo Nation and what you see in your community?
Janene Yazzie
Absolutely. This has really been the core of my work. I've always been a social justice advocate, I think, you know, being Indigenous and born into this world, it's kind of a path that is already laid for you. Because all our communities are always dealing with layers of challenges and layers of systemic oppression that very much inform our lived experience. And so when in 2011, when I was faced with having to make several career choices, I was volunteering at the United Nations permanent forum on Indigenous issues and came across a report. It was a climate risk assessment report. And it was done as a collaboration between a number of scientists, and I was specifically looking at the risk that we're going to be faced by the Navajo nation in the southwest United States due to the impacts of climate change. And reading that report really scared me. I was a new mother. I was a young professionalat this crossroads of sorts. And the report really laid out and connected a lot of the things that I knew and have experienced in my communities, like the loss of water sources, the increased desertification, the loss of vegetation, and then how these cumulative impacts we're increasing the concentration of environmental toxins that have been accumulated over generations of extractive industry, operations in our communities. And in my communities, in particular, we've been struggling with a legacy of uranium mining and the impacts of the 1979 Church Rock, uranium mill tailings spill. And so seeing this report and seeing the predictions that by 2017, there would be a dramatic shift because of the lack of availability of water. And that those people who were continuing a lot of our traditional lifeways of sheep herding, livestock rearing, food, maintaining our traditional food systems, would find a lot of those activities were where it would be no longer viable, just because of the impacts of increased desertification due to climate change in our territories. And so that was like a wake up call and really brought me back home. And I was so sure that when I came back home that everyone would be talking about these issues. Everyone would be, you know, trying to build solutions around how to create more effective mitigation and adaptation solutions. And that wasn't the case when we moved back. My nation was deeply involved in a long, what's been a very long battle for securing our nation's water rights. And so we came back with the intention of addressing climate change impacts and issues, but landing in the intersection of working in the nexus of water, energy, and food systems. And focusing particularly on helping to bring this data and bring these resources that were available in other places to communities in a way that could help build capacity and empower the type of holistic planning that would allow us to learn from our experiences in our communities. Prioritize around a shared vision for our resources and our communal well being to create climate adaptation mitigation plans and to also advocate for stronger protections for our water rights. And it's been an ongoing battle since then. With COVID-19, we've seen how precarious our water situation is, as well as our food security situation is. Part of the reason why we were not able to stem community spread is because a lot of our communities still lack access to clean drinking water, and communities that were well-dependent, that had a communal wealth system. Those well resources dry up quicker and sooner in the beginning of our spring and summer season, which led to people crowding around surrounding wells and overusing those. And so we saw thevulnerabilities of our communities on all fronts, with COVID-19, but also how the pandemic, vulnerabilities to the pandemic, the source of this virus, and all of these other issues that we're facing are all interconnected with the impacts of climate change and how our solutions need to also be interconnected and holistic in order to address them.
Kimberly White
I like that- interconnected solutions. As you said, with COVID, we're seeing how the environment is not a standalone issue. It is connected to the social issues. It's connected to, you know, the political issues, security, everything. So it's important that our solutions encompass this. And you have discussed the importance of traditional knowledge systems. Can you elaborate on what traditional knowledge is and how it can help combat the climate and biodiversity crises?
Janene Yazzie
Absolutely. We just finished a webinar with some amazing traditional knowledge holders that was hosted by Grand Canyon Trust around this particular issue and how it pertains to management of public lands. And so I'm going to kind of be repeating and relying on the work of my colleagues around this issue because I don't consider myself a traditional knowledge holder. That is a unique type of expertise that takes a lifetime to achieve. And so one of the things that we want to emphasize and that we found important in that discussion is really emphasizing the complexity around traditional knowledge systems. And how right now, because there are different forms of recognition of the value of traditional knowledge, particularly as it pertains to traditional ecological practices that have been shown and proven to be very successful at maintaining and preserving biological diversity. There's an attempt to try to clearly define what traditional knowledge is, that is actually very harmful to fully understanding and respecting the rights of Indigenous peoples and preserving and defining that for themselves, and creating the processes by which to transfer that knowledge between generations to the next generation. And so for us, the simplest way to kind of demystify what traditional knowledge is, for many of our communities, is that it's a way of living. It's a way of being and a way of knowing that has been accumulated over generations of our people's experience in developing place-base practices and ceremonies, languages and accumulated knowledge that is rooted in understanding how to maintain a holistic balance in our communities, with all the life forms around us. And like for that,it's a particular way of approaching and understanding our relationships to other forms of life and to the basic elements of life, so that we can achieve a way of living that centers our responsibility to maintaining healthy relationships with all of those things. And so it's been difficult for a lot of our advocacy and our movement generation because our rights are constantly under threat, especially our rights to our lands, territories, and resources. But in our ways of knowing and in our knowledge systems, and in our languages, we don't have a concept for rights that complements like the legal framework and the legal understanding or even the academic understanding of rights in the western worlds. But we have used that language as a tool to protect what we have, what we have left of our traditional communities, and of our lifeways and practices. But a lot of our work centering around traditional knowledge is really about just honoring and restoring our responsibilities to the earth, to our communities, to each other, to all forms of life, and to maintaining and respecting the elements that are fundamental to preserving life on this planet. I don't know if that was successful as simplifying it; we had like an hour long conversation around this. And I think it's really important because what I find most beautiful about not trying to tie down what traditional knowledge is into a concrete definition is that it leaves room for recognition of all of the different ways of living that people and cultures around the world hold. And it also maintains an openness to recognize that at one point or another, every culture was connected to place and that every culture has in it a history of what those responsibilities were to place. And I think that one, it definitely helps reveal and respect that Indigenous peoples even though we do a lot of work collectively, especially at the end the international level to advance our shared rights are shared concerns that we also come from very different cultures, very different language groups, very different experiences of colonization even. And yet somehow, there's an element in all of our knowledge systems that allows us to find unity. And that unity is often rooted in our respect for the earth, our respect for all life forms, and our commitment to restoring our responsibilities to life.
Kimberly White
I love what you said there- how even though it's so many different cultures, you are able to find unity in your respect for our planet. Many people don't realize that there are 476 million Indigenous peoples worldwide, and they safeguard 80% of our global biodiversity. Yet, they are often given a limited role, or left out entirely, of multilateral discussions on environmental governance. How do you think a global pact for the environment can help solve this, and what role do you think it should play moving forward?
Janene Yazzie
I think the global pact for the environment has a lot of potential for bringing us together as humans. As humans who recognize that we have a shared home, that we have a shared invested interest in preserving that home and preserving all of the wonderful gifts and that come from the diversity of ecosystem functions that this home provides. In that unity, we can break through all of the noise and all of the different aspects of division and of difference, to find common ground and to find a common purpose, and restoring our shared responsibility to all that's been gifted to us. And in that global pact, showing that commitment to that shared future and restoring what those responsibilities look like and sharing knowledge with each other—and building that pathway. We're in a very precarious moment in human history, you know, like, I think a lot of times we take for granted. With access to so many distractions through technology, we take for granted the preciousness of this moment, and how what a gift it is to be alive in this point in time to be able to reflect upon the generations of history that has for many people been mostly bad but has also really showed the strength and resiliency and capacity of forgiveness and of survival and of being able to thrive in the midst of overwhelming obstacles for so many, so many people around the globe. And being in this moment, and holding that reflection and restoring our shared understanding of the true history of how we've gotten to this moment, to recognize how a lot of our most problematic patterns and behaviors and institutions that have generated and maintained systemic inequality across our globe have all been manmade, and that we are being gifted this time right now, to benefit from how as a globe, we are more interconnected than ever, we have broken down a lot of barriers of communication and of connection. And have really been gifted a moment of pause in the midst of this pandemic to recognize how much we can shift our learned behaviors and shift the way we look at and value resources and shift our dependency on those resources. And I think with all of this; if we can continue to build off of the momentum and continue to maintain focus on a shared vision that can be offered through a global pact like this, we can find how to harness all of those beautiful gifts, while also find like nurturing pathways of healing among all of our different peoples. So that we can set a trajectory forward to co-create a future that benefits all life. And now more than ever is the time for that type of global pact. And I think the power of it is obvious in terms of what we're dealing with right now and where we need to go, and the type of commitment, collaboration, partnership, and social network that needs to be developed to get us there.
Kimberly White
Absolutely, as tragic and heartbreaking as this pandemic has been, it also presents an opportunity for us to build back better, to build a fairer, more just society. It allows us to refocus on what we need to do, especially with climate change. Right now, our emissions are down. So this is an opportunity to do that. Now, you have been working with the Right Energy Partnership to expand access to renewable energy while protecting Indigenous rights. And I found this was really interesting. Can you tell us more about this initiative and what you're hoping to accomplish?
Janene Yazzie
Yes, absolutely. So the right energy partnership was developed because, you know, and we see this with different global efforts and with different attempts to build solutions. A lot of times, our enthusiasm and the resources that are directed to solutions are often market based and still center the need to profit or to make a profit off of, especially as energy projects. And so as a result, even though the world recognizes that we need to shift, we need to shift away from greenhouse gas emissions and the energy industries that have contributed to climate change. In that shift, we saw that many of our Indigenous communities and Indigenous peoples were still having their lands, territories, and resources threatened because of large hydroelectric dam projects and large scale solar projects that were being built on their traditional lands and territories. And there's also the component about the just the energy field cycle, and when it comes to renewable energy in general. You know, like solar power panels, are not themselves a solution to a lot of our most egregious forms of environmental violence. We still have to mine precious minerals. We still have to mine lithium for the batteries. And a lot of these mining activities are still occurring on lands that were traditionally and customarily held and maintained by Indigenous peoples in Latin America, and Africa, and in Australia. And so in our collaboration in bringing Indigenous peoples from different parts of the globe into shared spaces and to share strategy, it became very apparent that Indigenous peoples in developed nations, who were very much trying to help facilitate and take part in the transition to renewable energy, also didn't want to be responsible for the continued exploitation of Indigenous peoples lands in these other areas. And then, we also started having conversations around the waste that is generated from renewable energy projects. A lot of people don't know that, you know, solar panels, once they're broken, are no longer functioning, become a form of toxic waste that is very hazardous. And so we started to see this pattern and renewable energy development, where we were replicating a lot of the harmful processes and practices that make energy development unsustainable in general. And so our solution to try to hold ourselves accountable, and the renewable energy projects that we supported, was to really think about and develop a rights-based approach to renewable energy development that took into consideration all of these things. And so it's a partnership that's based off of, again, that co-creation of knowledge and understanding about all of the things that we need to be aware of, and the shift to renewable energy, so that we can completely eliminate harmfulpractices that that can be replicated even when we're shifting to cleaner forms of energy. And in that process of sharing this knowledge and building like this knowledge exchange platform, and of being able to tap into international resources for renewable energy projects in developing nations, were able to take a different approach to how these projects are designed and developed and implemented and how they're maintained over time. And using these examples as a way to address and bring clarity around what best practices are for all renewable projects, to institute these types of standards and these approaches so that we can all be part of building better solutions and not just taking for granted market-based approaches that are unsustainable.
Kimberly White
So, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted at the UNGA in 2007. The Declaration confirms the right of Indigenous peoples to self-determination and recognizes subsistence rights and rights to lands, territories, and resources, as well as effective participation in all matters that concern them, and yet, the Declaration is not legally binding. Do you think the innovative legal framework proposed by the Common Home of Humanity would help resolve this and protect and bolster Indigenous rights?
Janene Yazzie
Okay, yes, yes, because I do think that we have very much needed a new legal framework, in general, to help deal with the issues that we face as human beings on this planet. And a lot of the issues that we end the threats to Indigenous peoples rights come from domestic policy, and from particular state histories and interests, and maintaining systems of colonists colonization and settler colonialism in these territories. And we have known through our years of advocacy that operating under those state apparatuses is enormously difficult. And the biggest progress that we have made has been when Indigenous peoples went to these international mechanisms and fought for the development of the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. And have implemented that across different programs of work and across different UN mechanisms and having it recognized in different ways and these different streams of work. That has been phenomenal in helping us then bring that language back to our local projects, and finding ways to push through are to circumvent a lot of the domestic legal barriers that we face. I see this as being that same initiative. And that's having that same type of promise. But on a larger scale, because I really appreciate how this initiative, in general, is centering and recognizing that the geopolitical boundaries that are separating our nations and our communities, is part of the problem that needs to be addressed and overcome in order to create a shared sense of commitment and responsibility to all of our global ecosystem functions. Because when we see a lot of, if people can read more and learn more about the particular Indigenous peoples struggles that are on these borders of these countries and these nations, I think it would help reveal how problematic these structures are. For example, with the building of the border wall between the US and Mexico, the resistance to that is a resistance to continue to protect vital and precious ecosystems that are very vulnerable to climate change but are extremely vulnerable to the development that's being proposed with this border wall. And that vulnerability and those threats have a long history with the development of the US Mexico border. We have several Indigenous communities that have always transcended those borders and so the introduction of the social-political issues and challenges, the introduction of the criminalization from the militarization of our borders, the introduction of environmental destruction and degradation that comes from disrupting the activitiesin those ecosystems along the border, and brings in harmful forms of development have all created this effect over time of threatening some of our most precious natural resources and ecosystem functions that are a vital part of the health of these trends, national rivers such as the Colorado River. We've, you know, for generations this lifeline which is considered the lifeline of the entire Southwest United States is also the lifeline for Northern Mexico and for years has not even reached the Gulf the way that it historically has done. And so there's a lot of our major river systems, our major watersheds, our major forests, they transcend these national boundaries. And we have to have a shared commitment, responsibility, and shared protections for those responsibilities to ensure that we're taking care of these vital places, these sacred places in a way that helps us mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change in a way that helps center alternative pathways to development that are more sustainable. And to do that, one of the things we need is an entirely new legal framework that allows us to manifest those types of solutions and protect those types of solutions from the state and corporate interests that for years have dissected our lands and only valued the resources found within them in terms of profit, monetary profit. I think as humanity, we're at a place where we are just now evolving our consciousness and coming to a shared understanding of the need to build greater alliances and greater partnerships to deal with all of the challenges that we face. And this global pact, the new legal framework that's being proposed, all of this, I think, is a phenomenal step forward towards realizing that solution.
Kimberly White
Absolutely, you make some great points, Janene. Is there anything else you'd like to share with our audience?
Janene Yazzie
I feel like there's so much to talk about. I really do think that there's a lot of great work being done by scientists, by international organizations, and by Indigenous peoples all around the globe. So I'm always encouraging people to get involved in initiatives like this and to support initiatives like this. To arm themselves with that local knowledge wherever they're from. Get to know their Indigenous peoples that traditionally called those territories home. Get to understand the history of colonization. Get acquainted with the legal frameworks that are preventing holistic approaches and solutions to climate change and to renewable energy development. Understand the importance of rights-based solutions and how centering human rights across all of our communities is a benefit for all of us. And then use all of that knowledge and all that energy to help contribute to initiatives like this. Because every person, nomatter their expertise, no matter what they bring to the table, no matter their lived experience, I think every person counts in the development of these solutions, and we need everyone to do that work.
Kimberly White
All right, and there you have it. Although we face unprecedented circumstances with the climate crisis and COVID-19 pandemic, history has shown us that humanity has the strength and resilience to overcome these overwhelming obstacles. By coming together to protect our common home with a global pact for the environment, we can co-create a future that benefits all. The legal framework proposed by the Common Home of Humanity can help us to deal with the issues we face together. That is all for today, and thank you for joining us for this episode of Common Home Conversations Beyond UN75. Please subscribe, share, and be sure to tune in next week to continue the conversation with our special guest, Professor Kim Sang-Hyup, Founder of the Coalition for Our Common Future and the President of the Jeju Research Institute. And visit us at www.ThePlanetaryPress.com for more episodes and the latest news in sustainability, climate change, and the environment.
Interview TranscriptTranscribed by Otter AI
Kimberly White
Hello and welcome to Common Home Conversations. Today we are joined by Karl Burkart, Co-Founder and Managing Director of One Earth. Thank you for joining us today, Karl.
Karl Burkart
Thanks. It's great to be here talking to you.
Kimberly White
Can you tell us more about One Earth and the focus of your work there?
Karl Burkart
Yeah, I'm the managing director of One Earth, and we are a philanthropic initiative, particularly focused on the science policy interface for the three Rio conventions. And we are running correspondingly roughly three major scientific models that we support with leading scientists around the world contributing to those three models. The first big one is the climate energy transition model, which was published last year in a very dense 500-page book called achieving the Paris Climate Agreement goals. It was authored by 17 leading climate energy scientists and is now being widely cited. And that was really to look at how we can stay below the 1.5 c threshold of global temperature rise? The second one, the second model, is called the Global Safety Net, which was just published on Friday and Science Advances. That was a two and a half year plus effort, a very large spatial analysis—the first global scale analysis of biologically important land. And one of the component products coming out of it is, you could say, a set of recommended area-based targets for the upcoming UN Biodiversity Convention. So that's the second Rio convention. It shows the different types of land that can contribute to ecosystem services and biodiversity by country. The third one, which we're just starting in partnership with the University of Minnesota and other scientists will be involved in, is a global food security model. The third model will contribute to looking at how we feed 10 billion people sustainably on the planet.
Kimberly White
So, today we seem to have gone from climate deniers to an attitude of it's already too late. Do you think we have the science and technology available today to form the solutions to stabilize the climate and keep warming at 1.5 degrees?
Karl Burkart
Yes, I, I love this question. Because the answer is absolutely, yes, we have the technology. And it's not just the technology solved, and sort of we need to now go into production. It's like we have the technology. It's as Obama would have said shovel ready, you know, we have it sitting on the shelves. And in the climate model in the energy transition model we supported, according to that model, we need to go from about 20% renewable energy today to about 56%, globally, which varies by region by 2030.
So as you know, this is relatively straightforward. We know exactly how to do it. And it's using technologies that are now battle-tested for ten or more years and are scaling quickly and becoming cheaper by the minute. So really, it's not the technology that's missing for the energy transition; it's the dollars. And in the climate model, we have, well, the back of the envelope summary budget required for this. The transition I just mentioned is about 1.3 trillion a year roughly. And that's less than one third what the governments spend today subsidizing fossil fuels, which are causing global warming. So, for less than a third of what we're paying to destroy the planet, we could transition the energy with technology, create tons of jobs, be great for the economy. It would increase energy security as well. And it would reduce the health risks associated with fossil fuels and climate change. So it's win-win isn't the right word. It's like win-win-win-win-win. It's like five wins if we did that, and yeah, it's just a matter of real political will at this point in moving the dollars.
Kimberly White
So governments have been creating commitments and new targets to combat climate change, while at the same time, as you just said, propping up the fossil fuel industry with trillions of dollars in subsidies, adding to the climate crisis. Do you think the COVID-19 economic recovery efforts are an opportunity to shift away from business as usual and toward cleaner, greener energy?
Karl Burkart
Yeah, I would say it's not just yes definitely. And not just on the energy side, but also the nature based solutions side. I'm seeing a lot coming from governments, especially the EU, who have been a big leader in this, and they've announced several Commissions on sort of a green recovery. So I think that it did, COVID did two things. One thing it did, which, of course, has positive-negative, it slammed the brakes on the global economy. It was like you're driving in your car, and a kid runs in front of you, and you have to slam on your brakes in a full stop. And that happens. So it's sort of like all these conversations that were happening, and there was going to be a climate convention, there's going to be a biodiversity convention, there's going to be a big UN summit, all these things, just everything went on hold. And the results are kind of coming in now. We'll see what happens, anywhere from 9 % to 17% reduction in carbon emissions this year. We have to wait, obviously, for the post mortem, but we think it'll probably be somewhere in the middle, like maybe 12-13% of a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, which is actually more than what we needed to do in terms of being on the 1.5 c track. So slamming on the brakes got us on the 1.5 c course. Now, the question is, are we going to just slam on the gas pedal? And I mean, that literally, right? Because we also have to make our transportation system much cleaner. But yeah, and I think that that slamming on the brakes gave us this pause. And a lot of people to kind of get started getting their ducks in a row, starting to look at recovery packages that could then be targeted towards sustainable and green infrastructure, energy and nature based solutions. The other thing that I saw with COVID is that just the awareness of nature, you know, how important nature is. Nature has always been hard to sell as a serious issue because somehow, climate change just sounded more technical. It was very technical and serious, and many technical and serious people started 20 years ago working on the climate convention.
For some reason, the biodiversity convention was left really playing second fiddle in another room. And you had your sort of hippie organizations fighting for nature, but was like the sort of technical serious people didn't really get it. And I think COVID made a lot of people realize what happens when you start to unravel the natural infrastructure that is providing the ecosystem services that the entire planet requires to exist. You know, when you lose that, you start pulling out these threads and unraveling and unleashing things like zoonotic diseases, which are diseases transferred from animals. We also know that loss of biodiversity and loss of nature increase vector-borne diseases carried by insects. So nature is our shield that keeps humanity in a safe operating space. So I think that's been a big awareness also. That was timely because both the climate convention and the biodiversity convention got pushed a year. I mean, the biodiversity convention will be next spring, and the climate convention will be next fall. So it's kind of given us, internationally, given us a breathing space to think about this. So I think that's a positive.
Kimberly White
So you are one of the authors of the Global Deal for Nature. Can you elaborate more on this and explain what targets should be set to combat the extinction crisis?
Karl Burkart
Yeah, so actually, the Global Deal for Nature was a paper laying out the theoretical underpinnings of and the methodology of what became the Global Safety Net. So they can be thought of as a pair. The Global Deal for Nature was released last year. And that was basically a very initial analysis of the remaining natural semi-natural lands and how important those lands are for both preserving biodiversity, but also for solving climate change. And that paper had the endorsement of over I think we're up to 150 Indigenous groups because one of the main points this paper makes is that when you look for the most rich, biodiverse rich land and the land, storing the most carbon, it ends up being Indigenous lands. And those lands need more protection and more, in particular in the form of land tenure given to the Indigenous people who are managing those lands, to prevent land grabs, and illegal logging and things like that. So, roughly the Global Deal for Nature divided into those two categories I mentioned. Sort of 30% kind of initially really needing urgently for biodiversity, and then another 20% for what they call climate stabilization or intactness. Across all of those lands, we later found out in the Global Safety Net, roughly 35%, I can give you the statistic exactly as 40% of the biologically, sort of the biodiversity, the high biodiversity lands overlap with Indigenous territories. And then about 30%, roughly, of the additional stabilization areas overlap with Indigenous lands. So we really see just how important territorial rights for Indigenous people are. And so in parallel, there was a lot of excitement around the release of the Global Deal for Nature. A petition was launched, and I think there are about 3 or 4 million signatures on there now to call for this bigger protection target of 50%. And, you know, the Global Safety Net that just was released, and that creates a kind of map, if you will, of what we were recommending and the Global Deal for Nature. And that map, you can kind of zoom in and look at the ecoregion level or the country level, and get a finer sense of how that divides up. So that, yeah, that's how the two work together.
Kimberly White
That's really interesting. We recently published an article on a new study that also supports what you just said, it found protecting Indigenous peoples' lands is essential to curbing biodiversity loss. There's a lot of studies on this, and it's imperative that we recognize this now and ensure their land rights and, moving forward, they should be a central voice in environmental governance.
Karl Burkart
Yeah, I totally agree. And I mean, actually, that really, yeah, I just tagged on to that, that I don't know, I don't think that paper did but there. If it hasn't come out, we should do this paper, but you really can't do 1.5 c without protecting Indigenous lands. There's just so much carbon stored on those lands. And there's a lot there, a lot of these lands are threatened, as we see in Brazil and other places. So yeah, essential for both conventions, I would say. And in terms of the governance, I mean, that it would be interesting. I think if you have a higher order legal theory around the idea of Commons, the interesting thing about Indigenous lands, and also, I would say, local, so all communally held lands. And we heard on September 15th, there's a new paper coming out on communally held lands. We believe that roughly 50% of the world's land is communally held. So a big part of that is Indigenous lands. But there's also a big part that is called local communities or traditional communities who don't necessarily identify themselves or identified by the government as quote-unquote, Indigenous, but have been on the land, in some cases for hundreds, if not thousands of years, managing the land. So if half the planet is managed communally already by Indigenous people in local communities, they need to be at the table when thinking through this new legal theory around commons because they're actually practicing the commons right now. And their work is actually in some way you could say subsidized all of us because, without Indigenous lands and the ecosystem services they provide, we would probably be at, I don't know, what, 2 or 3 degrees Celsius already. If you look at the vast stores of carbon on their lands, they do so much of a better job conserving those lands, and a lot of times the national parks or government designation, so, yeah, I think it's a very exciting thing. And we'd love to help facilitate that. In some way, however, we can, but there's a lot of actual experts already practicing legal, their own version of legal theory around communally held lands. And I think there's probably a lot to learn from that, to scale that up.
Kimberly White
So let's dive into the Global Safety Net a bit more. What can you tell us about this project and what you're hoping to achieve?
Karl Burkart
Yeah, I, I think I probably covered some of it just explaining the global analysis. It is just roughly it's a little more complicated than this, but it's 11 different global analyses that were compiled. So I'd say it's like, we like to say it's sort of, my former career before I went into environmental science technology work, I was an architect. And, you know, you can't build a building of any significance without a blueprint. And we didn't have a blueprint for- what do we need to do to save the biosphere? Essentially, what does that look like on a map? And so the Global Safety Net, you could say, was sort of like, the artist, it wasn't really an artist, science produced it, but it was sort of the rough sketch if you will have the blueprint to save our biosphere. And it also happened to confirm that finding that it's 50.4% of land area, inclusive of existing protected areas, we would consider important for biodiversity and climate stabilization. So we have now the beginning of a blueprint. And with science, you don't really want to have an agenda. You just want to get the science out there. And I think that was our thinking on this. We just need to get it out there. People may disagree on what some of the findings were, some of the spatial analysis techniques used to show. That's good, you know, because, I mean, think about it in the climate convention, there are literally thousands of scientists producing hundreds and hundreds of models. And all those models, because there are hundreds of brilliant scientists here in the world, producing their own model. They get to be compiled, and we get a really accurate sense with contributions from all these different scientists. So global safety is just the first one.
We hoped that there would be dozens more analyses like this that would present their own prioritizations. It could be at the country level, the region level, global level. But we want this to go out there just to start the beginning of these global models, which hopefully will inform the convention over the next ten years. But at some point, you just got to get the science out and let people react to it. And, it was a difficult peer review process. It took a long time, and we're using some novel techniques. And so like all things, it's the beginning; it's also a one kilometer resolution, which is fairly crude. You know, you can't use it to actually create a land plan, but you can use it to drive fairly accurate statistics. And so, I would say all the what we'd say here, the country level, quote, unquote, targets that you can see in the rankings, on the website, website, by the way, is Global Safety Net.app. And that is, we built that in partnership with Google Earth. So it is a way to display the data. And you can see that there are, you know, every country is different. There is a different amount and different types of all of those different classifications I mentioned. There are different amounts of those in each country. So it's up to each country to figure out how to prioritize the protection of lands. We would strongly advocate for really pushing this 30% that is identified as being of particular importance for biodiversity. That needs to be protected like yesterday, in our view, but the science is the science, so we gotta just let it out there and have people react to it.
Kimberly White
So do you think it's possible to achieve these major conservation and restoration efforts spanning 50% of lands and oceans and boosting nature based solutions without a legal framework within which to develop global policies?
Karl Burkart
I would say that we are, as human civilization, or civilizations, however, you want to say it, the human presence on earth is the longevity of that is a question mark. At this point, we are on the verge of being snuffed out. I mean, if we hit 1.5 degrees in global average temperature rise. Now to point out, we're already in many regions on Earth, we're already at 1.5 degrees Celsius. So like Australia, California now was just yesterday, the 112 degrees in Los Angeles. So we're, the Earth is warming at different rates.
Particularly worrisome is the extraordinary warming happening on both poles, Antarctica and the in the Arctic. And we've really got a gun to our heads because we're at 1.1 degrees Celsius, global average temperature rise, and we're seeing a collapse of major ice sheets and fires that were not predicted to happen at the scale, they're happening right now. So we're pretty sure at 1.5 degrees Celsius, at least One Earth’s position, we're a lot more worried than the current consensus position on the reality of 1.5 degrees Celsius. And, you know, there's one paper I like to cite that shows that at 1.5 degrees Celsius, we'd likely lose 8% of our arable land. So imagine 6 million people migrating out of Syria, because of prolonged drought and aridification of land, arable land, because of prolonged drought there. Imagine that times 50, you know, how can the world sustain 50 Syrian refugee crises happening simultaneously, combined with sea level rise, combined with fires combined with all these other things?
No, I do not think so. So like 1.5 C is an existential threat that is unlike anything that humanity has ever faced. So, the problem is the UN, which is very young. We have to remind ourselves it's only 75 years old. So it's, you know, it's about the same age as one of my grandparents, my one of my parents, right, and a lot of people's grandparents. So it was this first attempt at bringing the world's governments together to look at multilateral agreements. The problem is the legal theory wasn't really there. Even when we have conventions that get ratified, a lot of times, everyone walks away, and no one does much, you know, or they go halfway to what their commitment was. So I'm really hopeful that, you know, we definitely need the emergence of a new legal theory around the Commons, it is going to be a game changer. I do know that this conversation has to start now. Because it's very hard to believe that we are going to stay at this point, we are going to stay below 1.5 C with just leaning on government policy and, and the Paris agreement.
Kimberly White
How would the Common Home of Humanity contribute to reaching these much-needed goals and help to avoid these existential threats?
Karl Burkart
Common Home has the right framing. They're thinking about the problem at the scale that it needs to be thought of. You cannot solve, as the saying goes, you cannot solve a problem, a vexing problem within the confines of that problem. You have to go outside of the problem. And I think that's what Common Home does. It's leaping outside of the confines of national and even multilateral policymaking and going one higher order up. And I think that is the thinking that has to happen now. I don't know what would be involved in getting governments on board. But I know that we have to start the conversation. So it's great they're leading that charge. I think the idea of the commons having rights is a way to bring onboard bigger stakeholders. Because right now, it's mostly, it's like really super progressive NGOs, and Indigenous groups and youth groups forming these class action lawsuits, which is a great precedent. But to onboard governments is what, that's what we have to do. So I think that the bigger legal theory that Common Home is working on is really going to be important for that.
Kimberly White
On the Global Deal for Nature, you cite a study called 'An Ecoregion-based Approach to Protect Half the Terrestrial Realm.' And a key concept in that paper is that each of the world's 846 terrestrial ecoregions needs its own plan shared by countries whose boundaries overlap its geopolitical extent. How will the Common Home of Humanity help to achieve this, in your opinion?
Karl Burkart
I would love to. I would so love to explore that with you guys. Because we have the 846 ecoregions and, you know, 846 is a lot. And the issue of ecoregions and these are land ecoregions, so we have terrestrial ecoregions, freshwater ecoregions, and marine or coastal ecoregions. And the ecoregions, the 2017 ecoregions paper was a game changer. It identifies 846 land or terrestrial ecoregions. The issue with those is that a lot of times, you have one ecoregion that's very intertwined with another. One example of that may be in Wyoming in the United States, where you have the grasslands meeting the Rockies, the Northern Rockies, and you have this entanglement of grasslands and the forests there, the mountainous forests. So what we realized is actually for a global framework, for our own work, which is focused on, on science, implementing science to, you know, achieve the goals of the conventions. We needed a bioregional, kind of a slightly larger or higher order, a combination of ecoregions so that we're calling the bioregions, bioregions 2020. And that's going to be coming out in a few weeks. And there's 184 of them, so it's actually a similar number to countries. And we like to call them if nature, you know if nature got to draw a map of the world, this is what it might look like. And these are 184 of nature's countries. And those are groupings of ecoregions, confined by major geomorphic structures. So that's basins, mountain ranges, coastal plains, things like that. And so it's a novel biogeographical framework, which we think will allow for collaboration between those stakeholder governments that overlap the bioregion. So it's taking the ecoregions idea. And the ecoregions are the building blocks, right. So no ecoregion is divided up. They're like the Lego blocks, if you will, of the bioregions. And then the bioregions also include adjacent coastal and freshwater areas. So we're not limiting the field of study to just the land alongside the river, but also the river. And we're not limiting it to just say, the coastal plain adjacent to the ocean, but also the coastal areas off the ocean. Because if you're thinking about food security, for example, you can't really do that. You have to do that at a bioregional level because you have fishermen providing seafood. Then you have the land area that's able to provide crops, and there might be livestock in rangelands, activity, all of these things have to be thought of together, not separately. So that's why we think the bioregions would be a really interesting framework. So it'd be really cool to have collaborated with you on that and if it's a useful structure. Again, we're just putting it out in Creative Commons because we want everyone to be able to access it. But it will, on our website, we'll be rolling out on the One Earth website. If you go to explore, you'll see bioregions, and we'll have a first. I think it's the first-ever spherical map that you can click on. And so it's a clickable spherical map, which I'm being told hasn't been done. I'm sure someone's done it, but you'll be able to click on and then explore all about the bioregion you live in and the ecoregions that make up that bioregion, so that we're kind of just pushing that out as content and information just out in the Creative Commons. But we would love it if it could be adapted in more ways to be used for, for this idea of bioregional commons, which I think is kind of the direction we're going to need to go in.
Kimberly White
Absolutely. I know I'm looking forward to checking out that map.
Karl Burkart
It's pretty cool. It's really beautiful. It's very colorful, and the developers who built it are pretty badass. So we're looking forward to getting out there.
Kimberly White
I'm excited to see how this collaboration plays out and all of the great things you guys will be doing in the near future. So that is it for today's interview. Thank you for joining us, Karl.
Karl Burkart
Yeah, thank you. It's fun talking to you. Good questions.
Kimberly White
All right, and there you have it. The solutions to the climate crisis already exist. By utilizing the latest science and technology, we can limit warming to 1.5°C by protecting and restoring half of the planet's lands and oceans and making the shift to renewable energy. The legal framework proposed by the Common Home of Humanity can help achieve these ambitious goals. That is all for today, and thank you for joining us for this episode of Common Home Conversations Beyond UN75. Please subscribe, share, and be sure to tune in next week to continue the conversation with our special guest, Janene Yazzie, Co-Convenor of the Indigenous Peoples Major Group on Sustainable Development. And visit us at www.ThePlanetaryPress.com for more episodes and the latest news in sustainability, climate change, and the environment.
Kimberly White
Hello and welcome to Common Home Conversations. Today we are joined by Paulo Magalhães, Founder and President of the Common Home of Humanity. Thank you for joining us today, Paolo.
Paulo Magalhães
Thank you. Thank you so much for your invitation, so kind. Thank you.
Kimberly White
So Paulo, can you tell us what inspired you and your organization to launch this global call for a legal framework?
Paulo Magalhães
The main idea, the starting point was when I saw a legal dysfunction one incapacity for law to explain the law, and this happened in 2002, when the oil tanker that crashed near the border between Portugal and Spain, in the north of Portugal, and the crash was on Spanish waters. And the first reaction of the Spanish authorities was to push the boat for Portuguese waters, they tried to push, and after our army sent the boats, and the reality was that there were several boats on the water in the middle of the oil spill and the oil went to both sides. This is when this reality of having one line that is abstract, that is a legal obstruction that divides the sea. The sea, we cannot divide the sea; we cannot, we can divide the space of the sea, but we cannot divide the water; we cannot divide the system; we cannot divide the quality of the water or the fishes. So this is really one incapacity of law to explain the reality of this planet, of this interconnected planet, for so when we do lose the connection between the abstraction and the legal figuration and the reality of the planet, we have to look for solutions. This is what you need a new legal abstraction that is able to represent the interconnections of the planet.
Kimberly White
So, we have had agreements to address the climate crisis such as the Kyoto Protocol, and of course, the Paris Climate accord. However, we're still struggling to move the needle. The annual emissions gap report from the UN environment released last year found that global greenhouse gas emissions must fall by more than 7% each year over the next decade if we're to limit warming to 1.5 degrees. And we recently learned that we have failed to achieve any of the global biodiversity targets set a decade ago. What do you believe has prevented us from moving forward and finding the solution?
Paulo Magalhães
One of the main mistakes is to consider and our mental inability to address the global, you understand? To accept, we can say but to accept and to view that the things are all interconnected. The question is the same problem that I talked about before about the absence of one legal abstraction that is able to represent the interconnects, the interdependence of this planet is the same reason or is the structural reason for not achieving any results, in my view, on the climate emergency, or biodiversity. The question is, when climate for the first time entered the UN discussions in the 80s, the first question that was raised was 'what is climate from a legal point of view.' Climate, as you can imagine, is something absolutely different for international law because climate is not a territory, it is a system; it is more than a system, it is a well-functioning system. It is a pattern of stability of the function of the system that is predictable that we can have seasons, well-defined seasons, and all the years, the same pattern repeats and repeats again. And we have an envelope of temperatures that stay inside these limits of temperature. Climate is for so it's a well-function, a well functioning Earth System. It is a way of functioning of the system that is favorable for humans and other species. And this model, operating model of the system is intangible, it is a software. It's not a territory; it is not the hardware, it is the software.
The great question is that from a legal point of view, we still look at the planet as we did in the 18th century, in the 17th century, in the 16th century, or more. The question is we are still looking at this planet only as a territory, divided between states, where the leftovers of the territories are the global commons. And this is not true. This is not absolutely true. What makes this planet different from all the planets that we know is the system. All the planets have a territory, bigger or smaller than Earth, all the planets have a territory. What the other planets do not have, and we have here on this planet, is the system that supports life. The system, the Earth System in a well-function way or function, is our main heritage. It is our main and most valuable thing that we have on Earth because it supports life and supports us. And for the law, this system does not exist, does not exist because it's intangible, because you cannot divide it, because we cannot appropriate it, we cannot properly privatize these things. And if we can divide the space of the sea, as we have made on the territorial waters, we can divide the space, but we cannot divide the system that operates inside the water of the oceans; we cannot divide the system that operates on the airspace, we can divide space, we cannot divide the system. Okay. And this is the great difference. Because we do not accept that we have a global common without borders, we do not manage climate as a global common. This is the great quest.
And when climate entered in the UN negotiations in the 80s, the first proposal from Malta was to propose to recognize a stable climate as a common heritage of mankind. The question was in 1992, in the Rio summit, the decision was to consider climate change as a common concern of humankind. And this makes all the difference. This is the main reason why we still do not have any results in tackling, tackling climate change, because, with this decision, we decide that climate is not a common good, we decide that climate is an issue, an issue like any issue, and from a legal point of view, no one knows what is a concern from a legal point of view, in terms of flights and in terms of duties. And the main question, because we do not accept that climate is a system that exists in the real world and not an issue, we do not accept that it is a global common and we do not manage it as a global common. And the great question is again, because we do not recognize the stable climate as a global public good, all the benefits that maintain and produce a stable climate do not exist for the law, and for so do not exist for the economy.
For example, the question of Amazon, I call it the paradox of Amazon. Everyone knows that the forest of Amazon is one of the key ecosystems on the planet that maintain and produce a stable climate. This forest has the highest value for humanity. A great question is this value that everyone feels this value, everyone knows about this value, but this value is not visible for the economy. Why? Because when we talk about the value of Amazon, we are talking about the intangible work that these ecosystems and other ecosystems around the world make on the function on the model of operating of the Earth System, on the intangible work of nature, on the chemical changes that the forest made on the air, on the water, on the soil. And these chemical changes, this intangible work does not exist because the common does not exist. From a legal point of view, this work is made in a global legal gap; the global does not exist. Law considers the global commons are only the leftovers of the territories. Sorry, sorry. This planet is more than a territory. No jurist in the world, no legal expert in the world can say that that is not true. The truth is that this planet is more than a territory, and nature is not wrong; what is wrong is the law, the law is wrong.
Without changing this, it will be totally impossible to restore the system because we do not have a legal framework to restore a global common, no one will make improvements on a global common that does not exist, that will not be compensated for these, no one will produce benefits on a legal gap. This is the great question. The result of the concern approach is not a decision to manage a global common that implies a congress between the rules of appropriation of the global commons and also a congress from appropriation with the providing the global public good, we need rules for providing the global public rules and for the appropriation, the result because we do not have the global common, the result is one system of mitigation between states. And the system of mitigation is we will try to make less emissions. But in the end, this is a negative-sum game, we will continue to make emissions, and this is the only way our economy works. Because to make positive, to make benefits on the Earth System, to restore the Earth System it's invisible for the economy, without changing this legal framework, we will not restore the Earth System. We will not ensure the future for the next generation.
Kimberly White
Now, when discussing an intangible global common without borders, one initial misconception regarding this deals with national borders and sovereignty. Can you address this?
Paulo Magalhães
We must understand, some way, explain that these are two different realities. One is the division of the space, and the other is the system, two different realities. And this is the great secret somehow for the condominium, why in the condominium it's possible to have common property inside the space of private property. Because there are different things. One thing is the space is my apartment, another thing is the system of electricity or the system of water, okay. Or the system of the elevators. One is the functional division, another is a space division. And we can conciliate both. This is what we need to do on the planet. We need to consider the system as a global common that exists inside and outside all the sovereignties, and this does not mean that we have to finish with the borders, with the sovereignties.
To be honest, the only way to keep sovereignty under the territories is to keep the system in a well-functioning way. Without a well-functioning Earth System, there is no sovereignty that can say I do not agree with climate change. The climate change is there; the system is there; this is the reality of this planet. And this is not under the sovereignty of any state. This is not under the jurisdiction of any state. The only way to manage one common is, as Professor Elinor Ostrom tells us, the first step is to define the commons. What is the common that is the state that we have to manage? This is the first step, and I think it is to define the Earth System as a common heritage of mankind. And now, we have the scientific tools that are needed to define this common heritage. The safe operating space for humankind, I think, is the scientific tool to define this intangible common heritage of mankind that supports life. The second step is to create congruence between the rules for appropriation and the rules for provision of the common good. Without this, it's impossible to have a collective action. This is the structural conditions for a collective action. Climate change is not a problem of CO2. Climate change, before being a problem of CO2 or economic problem, is a problem of commons, of managing commons. Without creating the conditions to be possible, as successful management of commons, we will not address, we will not win this war against climate change. Because this is a problem that no one's talked about, that is behind all the problems. And people consider, take it as something given that climate change is a common concern with an oil waiver, without no one knows what is a concern.
Kimberly White
So climate change is essentially a symptom, not the root cause of the illness.
Paulo Magalhães
It's a symptom. Yeah, you are right; this is the difficulty of accepting from a sovereignty feeling that we have a common inside our territory. Independently, if you accept or not, the commons is there, its function, we have no sovereignty under the common system and our future, the future of the next generations depend on this commons.
Kimberly White
Now historically, economic growth has come at a devastating cost to the Earth's natural systems, or global commons. Essentially, when we destroy the environment, we create wealth with no penalty, but at the same time, there are no incentives in place to reward nature positive solutions. And recent studies have found that nature could create trillions of dollars in annual business opportunities. This system is dysfunctional. How do we reconcile economic development with growing environmental concerns?
Paulo Magalhães
And this is, again, a legal question. A legal question that is behind the conception of value, the conception of what is wealth creation in our society. If we accept that we have a common without borders, intangible, that is not a threat to the sovereignties. That is the only way to keep the sovereignties working for the future and driving for the future. If we accept this, and we accept that the climate that I have inside my country depends on what others made on the other side of the planet, it depends on the ecosystems that are in other countries. If we accept this common, we put some competencies in one institution that will manage, that I think should be United Nations, that should manage what are the positive impacts that each one makes and the negative impacts that each one makes on the common system to create the system of accountancy of these impacts, to create a global public policy of the maintenance of this, of this climate, we can change the rule of the game where the wealth creation, the wealth creation in our society only happens if we destroy nature. If we recognize the commons, we can give value to the work of nature; we can give value to the intangible work of nature. And we must distinguish that Amazon, the rainforest, I only talk about Amazon because this is the biggest Okay, all the ecosystems are this. This is the same thinking for the rest of the ecosystems. But I talk about Amazon because it's the biggest one.
Kimberly White
The lungs of the Earth.
Paulo Magalhães
Yeah, the question is, the forest of the Amazon belongs to the nine countries that share this space on Earth. The work that is made there is common because there are no borders for the work of nature. There are no borders for the evapotranspiration; there are no borders for the absorption of CO2; there are no borders for the oxygen; there are no borders for the organic that goes to the water that after all the organic material that goes to the water and after feeds all the oceans. There are no words for this. But these forests belong to the countries that are there. The question is, we need to make one accountancy of the system that compensates this work. For the benefits that these territories made to all the systems that we all share the benefits, we all share the benefits of these ecosystems in the same way that we all share the damage that the pollution or the emissions of fuels all over the place, we share the benefits, and we share the damage. So the only way to harmonize this question is to recognize the common, and after to make a system of governance of the use of this common. And to think if we accept the benefits, if you introduce the benefits on the accountancy, all the accountancy will change. It will have cascade effects on the emissions, on the logic of the emissions, on the logic of what is on the GDP of countries. Without changing this rule, we will continue on the negative-sum game, we will try to reduce emissions, but we will never restore the system. Because we will not, we will not create one caring activity of the Earth System in the countries, and the carrying activity of the Earth System should be compensated and should become visible on the GDP of the countries. And we must have a balance between the positive impacts and the negative impacts. And the question is if we introduce the positive impacts, what will be the consequences, the cascade conscripts on the negative? Because these will change the rule of the game is to touch on one initial condition of the system that will have cascading effects, that will have domino effects in all the economy, in all the relations between North and South, in all the relations inside the countries, it's a paradigm shift. And to have results, I think it's inevitable that we need a paradigm shift. We have so many paradigm shifts along history, why cannot we have another one?
And think of this, we have already recognized the existence of, we have a legal status for the common heritage of mankind, we have already recognized legal objects of law, intangible legal objects of law, in outer space law. We have already defined the safe operating space that is the space when we are talking about the safe operating space with the planet boundaries framework. We are not talking about a space, this space is not a territorial space, it's a quality space of the system. We have the quantity and quality parameters that define a well functioning Earth System. We have all the tools that we need to recognize the global common, to measure the impacts, to define the global common, to change. The only obstruct that we have, in our heads, in our ideas, is to accept that we have a global common without borders. This is the only obstruct we have. The obstruct between to give the opportunity for the next generations to thrive and to live or to be in the disruption, in the climate disruption, The only obstruct in this moment is one long-held belief that we have borders and we do not have a global common without borders.
The great question is, we are not talking about territories. We have to leave our mindsets from the territory and to embrace the idea of the system. We need to keep the borders on the territories to have peace, to maintain the peace that we can get, but at the same time, we need to build a legal framework that is able to represent the global function of the Earth System; we need something, a legal abstraction, that is not Earth System, when we propose to recognize the Earth System as a common heritage, is not saying that the common heritage will be the Earth System, this these will be a representation of the Earth System with the knowledge that we have now, that is the safe operating space that is the best knowledge that we have now, the reality is, what we can have for sure is that this planet is not only a territory and we need to represent the functionality of the system from a legal point of view and after to build a system of global governance of this global common.
So, by introducing in our accountancy, in our GDP, the work of nature, we can make a paradigm shift in what is value. And by doing so, we can build one economy not only to reduce emissions, that we are already starting to do, but also one economy of restoring the Earth System. The countries that have used ecosystems, the key ecosystems of the planet, of course, they must be compensated okay, but they must be compensated because they are providing one service that supports life for everyone. And this will create new jobs, new ways of wealth creation. And, you know, you have to work on both sides reducing the impacts and restoring the ecosystems, and they will work together but to work together and to work on both sides, you need that the results, outcome of these works, the outcomes of these activities become visible in the economic system, in the global economic system. And do not forget, when we are investing in less emissions, in the equipment with less emissions with/or capturing CO2, you are working on intangibles, natural intangibles, like producing benefits on the Earth System, or less emissions or negative or capturing CO2. So we are always working when we are reducing with new technologies to avoid emissions; we are living with intact natural intangibles, and we are living to avoid emissions of natural tangibles. So what we are talking about is about one economy of natural intangibles, more than commodities, that are support of life. And we should build this new economy around this. So it's a new economy that will have new jobs, new economic activities that are different from the previous one, okay. So, there is no contradiction between economy and nature. The contradiction is between what we conceive as value, what we consider as wealth creation, and nature. Economy is not a new position to nature. What is the new position is our concept of what is value for nature, what is value for an economy, what is the concept of wealth creation.
Kimberly White
Now, I think that's a really great point. And I know the World Economic Forum recently came out with a report on how nature-positive solutions are good for our economy. So essentially shifting away from business as usual, which is a hot topic right now with COVID-19 and the green recovery, and adopting these nature-positive solutions could create trillions of dollars in annual business opportunities and create nearly 400 million jobs over the next 10 years alone. So, this will be very beneficial for us as a global community and also our local communities.
Paulo Magalhães
Yes, with some great advantages, Kimberly, very good technologies with zero emissions are capturing CO2 with no damage or nature-based solutions to boost the programs of nature-based solutions, you need a legal framework that captures what are the positive externalities, okay to have many to invest in nature-based solutions, okay. No one will put millions and millions and millions of dollars in nature-based solutions because the outcomes of nature-based solutions are natural intangibles, benefits on the Earth System that needs to be compensated okay. So, to talk about one conflict between the economy and nature is absolutely madness, in the sense that the problem is not economy, the problem is what has value. And I ask again, what has value for humankind? More iPods or more commodities or more the biology of physical conditions that support life? We can continue to produce commodities, we need to produce commodities, but we need to produce less commodities and to produce more intangibles, the natural intangibles that support life because without this, in the end, no one will earn money, because the system will collapse. So, the problem is the system of what has value for us, what really matters for us, okay, this is the question we give value to what? And although it is evident for us, but the systems do not change, the only one that can change is economy, the one that can change is the law, the laws of nature will not change. So the only solution is to adapt our laws, to adapt our economy to support life and the next generations. There is no excuse to not do it. There is no excuse.
Kimberly White
I like that- we must change because the laws of nature will not change. Thank you, Paulo. This was enlightening. Do you have any final thoughts to share with our audience?
Paulo Magalhães
Yes, yes. We can manage the system without undermining the territory, the sovereignty of states. This is from a legal point of view, from a political point of view, one new solution, because this is the time also to connect the new science about the function of the Earth System, the reality of the Earth System, with the legal concepts, with the political solutions, with the designing of policies, and the designing of organic institutions, of institutions designing global governance, so only connecting of all of these science, with law, with the consequences in economy, by recognizing the work of nature that support life, and also connecting with the political and institutional solutions that we need to manage the system. This is the new society that we need, the evolution that we need to have 100% where we can live, where the next generations can live. We cannot think that in the Anthropocene, we will live in the same way, with the same thought that we lived 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 5 years ago. And do not forget also, that all that we are seeing now, the nationalists and so on are also one outcome of not having a solution for this fact of being, we are all connected, we will depend on each other on a global scale. And because we have no solutions for this, we have no design, we have no governance design for this reality of the planet, that the outcome is each one is trying to close themselves in their borders thinking that this is the best solution for them. And we know that this, this is not true. Climate change, pandemics do not respect any border. For so, only building something that represents a world without borders, the systemic approach, and keeping the borders on the territory and allowing the system to exist without borders, we can find new solutions.
Kimberly White
All right, and there you have it. Our planet is more than a territory, and the great quest moving forward is to recognize the existence of the Earth System as a Common Heritage of Humankind. By recognizing our global commons, we can give value to the intangible work of nature and take the first step to restoring a stable climate, a visible manifestation of a well-functioning Earth System. That is all for today, and thank you for joining us for this episode of Common Home Conversations Beyond UN75. Please subscribe, share, and be sure to tune in next Wednesday to continue the conversation with our special guest, Karl Burkart, Co-Founder and Managing Director of One Earth. And visit us at www.ThePlanetaryPress.com for more episodes and the latest news in sustainability, climate change, and the environment.
Kimberly White
Hello and welcome to Common Home Conversations. Today we are joined by Dr. Izabella Teixeira, Co-Chair of the United Nations Environment Programme's International Resource Panel and former Minister for the Environment of Brazil. Thank you for joining us today, Izabella.
Dr. Izabella Teixeira
Thank you for inviting me to join you. Okay, my pleasure.
Kimberly White
So, you have dedicated your life to protecting nature, what was the driving force for this passion?
Dr. Izabella Teixeira
It's a hard question because I have been working the last 35 years considering environmental issues, not only in Brazil but also at the global level. I'm a biologist, and I learned how fascinating life is, the diversity of life is. And I was born in the last century, in the 60s, and it was a moment in the world that the 70s and 80s and 90s that we are preparing how you live in this century, in the new century. So environmental issues were emerging as strategic global issues, and I was really fascinated to have the opportunity to join not only to move forward considering the developing issues in my country, and how can bring development together with environmental preservation and conservation, but more also how we can have an inclusive approach, consider the diversity of societies and those in my country also, and also the inequality, social equality used to bring things together since my early years. So I think that environmental agenda and sustainability agenda it was during my career that the decisions emerge, and also you're able to join, consider the global multilateral agreements, and also the global summits, etc., etc., but always trying to manage better the national realities in Brazil and, how we can bring people together. So it's, for me, it's beyond the science, beyond the politics, means that we can be together, and this fascinated me. I love the diversity of the planet, and not only the biological ones, okay? And this, the possibilities to discover, to rediscover the world, and to be closer to other people. This is something that still today makes sense for me to move forward. So how to be part of the world in a way that you can contribute to better quality of life and improve the relationship between humankind and nature; as a biologist makes sense for me.
Kimberly White
Absolutely. And you are from one of the most biodiverse places on the planet. So I imagine that definitely had an influence on your career decisions to protect nature.
Dr. Izabella Teixeira
Yes, fantastic, because I started working in 1984 after my graduation, and also I was fully dedicated to scientific research. And I was provoked to join an environmentalist in Brazil that was charged to create the new institutional arrangements, institutional governance in Brazil to manage environmental issues, not the natural resource issues on your biology as in the traditional way that they used to be approached. And it was a big challenge. And this man changed my life. And his name was Paulo Nogueira Neto, a famous conservationist around the world. And also, I was absolutely introduced to this political world; the environmental politics, indeed, how the multilateral assessment will bring us together. The big challenges that we will face and we still face today consider climate change the global issue like by diverse conservation and also how a country like Brazil is a high biodiversity assets not only in Amazonia, but in the Amazon forest, but also tropical forests like Atlantic Forest, and also the diversity of biomes, how we can bring this together, how you can use this in a better way to promote the development that you need.
Kimberly White
Well, you've certainly had a very impressive career. And I know that you achieved an incredible 84% reduction in deforestation of the Amazon, the lowest historical deforestation rate. It has been called the largest ever global contribution for emissions reduction. Can you tell me more about this?
Dr. Izabella Teixeira
Yes, when I checked the numbers today. And I look back to the past, just remember my professional career, when we in Brazil were fully engaged to tackle deforestation in Amazonia. And we established the first national program to go against deforestation, and you learn a lot with this process. I was part of the environmental enforcement team in the Brazilian institution that we call IBAMA, an environmental institution. And I was part of this staff that went into Amazonia to tackle deforestation. And it was very nice because it was not only the environmental constituency but also the science- it came together. And so you bring together deforestation and also fires. The need to develop the scientific knowledge, the need to have an alliance, and I was charged to negotiate the first memorandum of understanding between Brazil and the United States and learn more how we manage and tackle forest fires, how we can move on considering this agenda. And along my career, I had the opportunity to manage important international programs like the National Environmental Program together, the first one with the World Bank, and also the famous PPG7.
So, when I was minister, you have this experience in Brazil, you know that Brazil we have been improving our knowledge in the last 20 years, exactly how to manage better the enforcement, environmental enforcement in Brazil, not only in Amazonia. And, unfortunately, deforestation in Amazonia is around 95% based on illegality, this environmental crime you have a powerful legal framework in Brazil to tackle these problems. And indeed to have the full capacity, a scientific one, but also institutional ones to bring institutions, public institutions, together and to go against deforestation, to go against environmental crime.
And Brazil, in 2009, 2010, we launched our first national climate change policy that supports us to address better the outcomes. So what I'd like to highlight is that I have the huge opportunity to connect innovative public policy like biodiversity conservation, it is the most important protected areas program in the world, around six million hectares, under biodiversity conservation protection in the Amazon region. Together, this is part of a legacy. And also, we promoted the second and third phases and to address better with civil society, new innovative governance models, such a way that you can bring things together.
So, it's not only going against the illegalities; we use these outcomes to promote innovative public policy on climate change and biodiversity conservation and also to address solutions considered global sustainability when Brazil host the Rio+20 conference 2012 and also in Brazil develop innovative public policy like genetic resource access, the Nagoya protocol, etc. etc., make sense to be bringing things together. We cannot have a fragmented approach to address global issues. We need to understand how to connect and how to bring new narratives, develop a narrative, an economic and social one that makes sense for environmental conservation. So, I'm very honored to host, not only to work hard, that I did, but also to host the legacy from other partners that were fully engaged to address in our recent, the last 35 years of environmental history, in Brazil, how we learn as society, learn as a public institution, we learn as an environmental government, also international cooperation, how you can join, how we can be together to tackle the illegalities, the environmental crime, as I mentioned before, but also to manage a successful agenda to bring things together to make sense for developing emerging economies like Brazil.
Kimberly White
Now, we often talk about the importance of stopping deforestation and conserving the Amazon, but we seldom talk about the Amazonians that live in the region, which is around 25 million people; I didn't know that. A recent study has shown that Indigenous people are critical to conserving biodiversity. However, they're often left out of the key multilateral discussions on environmental governance. How do we solve this social, environmental issue and include Indigenous leaders at the table to discuss how best to conserve these highly biodiverse areas?
Dr. Izabella Teixeira
This is an excellent question. Brazil has a diversity of populations, okay. And Indigenous people are part of this. And also, Indigenous people have rights. And these rights are well recognized in our Constitution. So this is a known issue, in my opinion. Why tunnel vision? We need to practice what the Federal Constitution established. We need to recognize their rights. So, when I have people that go against this, this doesn't make sense to go against the law.
It's the same around the world, when you go into the other countries and to check Indigenous people, we cannot deny their rights. What we need to understand is how to bring these guys into the political rooms to sit at the tables, at the roundtable, to discuss their rights and their perspective. But they are not the only ones who have the other perspective that we need to bring together and to conciliate.
It's a transformative process to know or to learn how to listen to people, how we can use the knowledge meant in their perspective together with us. And together, try to find new ways to promote development around the world with an inclusive approach. Start trying to address informalities and inequalities, to address better political rights, to be together, and to discuss based on our knowledge and our ambition, and our values.
So this diversity, it's our power, it's our asset. But we, unfortunately, don't know sometimes how to manage this and how you can listen to these people; Not only to come on this is a public hearing, know how we can build new processes based on this diversity of stakeholders and the diversity of knowledge, acknowledging the loss and diversity of political assets. And this is something that countries like Brazil, for example, have some players in Brazil that have difficulty to understand this. So, my feeling is that we need in a pragmatic role, a pragmatic way, in a political way, we need to separate better what are the known issues and what are the new issues, what are the concrete issues that we must address, and the concrete ways that you can move forward.
Kimberly White
Absolutely. And talking about solutions. One of the things that has been brought up in recent years is a new global pact for the environment. Do you think that the environment and sustainability issue can be the needed common ground for building a new economy, a more just society, and establishing a better legal framework for the environment?
Dr. Izabella Teixeira
Yes, this is something also, in my opinion, so fascinating, because when the humankind is supposed to be confident that we are able to manage everything, you have this disruptive process, not only based on the COVID crisis and the health and environmental crises-and this COVID crisis is a health and environmental crisis, but also consider the new political global water. And what's happened today and how we can share new values considering that to have one planet, I don't know of a planet B.
So we need to understand that when we are discussing sustainability, in my opinion, sustainability is the only issue today that brings all the countries together, okay? They are not trade and other economies and innovation. It is not peace; for example, we have the different problems around the world. It's not migration, we agreed. So, sustainability is the issue that brings the nations together, the society together. And, indeed, after the COVID crisis, or during the COVID crisis, we are learning how we need to improve our relation between humankind and nature. So, what I'm saying is that if you understand this, or if you understand the strategic role that science used to play, but will play strategically in the future, how we can bring the scientific knowledge together with our political understanding, our economic knowledge, and then how we did you can manage this, it means that probably humankind is learning today that we need to know more about the connections and how things are connected around the world, how nature connects things, how also all societies will be connected not only based on physical assets but also considering the challenges of the economy of innovation that will breed us in innovative ways in the next years.
So, that's why I think that a global pact for the environment is the new way to show not only the challenge that you have, considering environmental protection, global environmental protection, but it's a new way to show and to share the connection among different societies and different people. It is how we can share core responsibilities with different people without going against old concepts like national sovereignty. National sovereignty was solved in the Stockholm Declaration in 1972. So when we have some players that try to go back to the past, attempt to highlight things that were so good, around 50 years ago, come on, we are not discussing this, okay, what we are discussing, how we can bring global society, we are a global society. And we have different societies that are coming together with different challenges with different perspectives. But what I'm saying is that the diversity of societies, diversity of economic realities, diversity of environmental reality, but we have one planet. And we need to understand how things connect, how we can share responsibilities, what would be the new expression of global citizenship.
And that's why a global pact for me, to debate a global pact for the environment makes sense; we need to debate, we need to understand what are the new challenges, we need to understand what are the new responsibilities. Not to go against one country or another one. You cannot forget that sustainability brings us together. That is so important to reinvigorate the multilateral system. To understand better how international cooperation will move forward considering the next years. It's not moving on; it is how we can move forward, what is new, indeed, how we can have the private sector as a core responsible actor, player, not a sector that will wait for the government decision; society is not meant as this anymore. So the role of media, the role of communication, and also our individual responsibility to make sense at the global level. So we are connected not only considering the nature, nature is absolutely key for this connection because the planet is connected, environmental service, everything but we need to understand, in our new challenges, the global challenge that we have today is the new world that's coming. The role of technology, the role of scientific knowledge, the role of individual partnership, the role of the new generation, indeed, how it can make sense to go into new challenges or to go a new way to have nature and environment preserved and to use this better for quality of life in our lifestyles and wellbeing.
Kimberly White
You make some really great points, Izabella. There really is no Planet B, and we're definitely not going to Mars anytime soon, so it really is imperative that we take better care of our planet. There is a lot of concern about the destruction of the Amazon, yet there are no incentives in place to conserve or restore this vital resource, or others. You were one of the first ambassadors of the Common Home of Humanity- how would legal recognition and protection of the earth system as proposed help preserve this and other critical aspects of our climate?
Dr. Izabella Teixeira
Okay, I think that two or three recommendations. The first one, when you go into the global pact, and you go into these environmental ecosystems that are so important for the planet, we need to understand the national realities. So it's very important, first of all, that if we go to conservation or restoration agenda, we need to understand what are the challenges, what's happened. Unfortunately, you have this war of narratives. And as I mentioned, even you don't know about the 25 million people that live there. And this is the Brazilian reality. We need to understand the Amazon reality; this means that you need to understand the Amazon challenges considering the Amazon Basin and how we can bring people to get; this is the first recommendation.
My second recommendation is that if you have this earth system that you know, and indeed how we can use better the scientist knowledge in such a way that you can have robust inputs to combine this knowledge with the legal requirements or the legal understanding about the global warding, and we need to move on preserving the systems. So what I'm saying is that when you bring legal framework or legal acknowledgement, we need to understand what science is saying. And also, what are the gaps or knowledge and also what are the trade-offs that we have today. We need to understand the diversity of the political situation and how we can arrange people together, and how we can bring discovered understanding and build common interests based on common interests and be able to build convergence.
So you need to understand how we can bring international cooperation, international knowledge, and also international solidarity to support solutions and also to understand how we preserve Amazonia, how Amazonia preservation- what it really means considering the diverse situation that we have there. This is really illustrative because Amazon is part of the earth system and is needed to maintain their system. So when you go into this reality, and try to understand the, as I mentioned before, the war of narratives, and try to move beyond this, and don't go into the local politics and understand how we can bring or discuss internationally, what is the new international cooperation agenda that we must be developing to support situations like Amazon in Brazil, this will make a good strategic contribution to change the picture that we have today.
So legal recognition and protection must be used to address the solution that we need. And also to support these to make this solution permanent, to make this solution resilient, and not only to go into the fight on to go to bring the guilt as international trials, I agree with this. But when we manage justice, or environmental justice, social justice, my feeling is that we need to use these tracks in an innovative way, in such a way that you can solve the problems in a permanent way. We need to go against poverty, we need to go against social inequality, but you need to recognize the Indigenous peoples' rights. We need to understand they like to live in an innovative way. If you want to have business in Amazonia, we need to develop new business models because this is not based on the traditional ways. And also, the international market must host these and pay for this. So what I'm saying is that we need to use this proposal to have legal protection for the earth system as the Common Home of Humanity is highlighting. It's an important voice at the international level, but also to recognize the challenge that we have, for example, in the Congo Basin, also Indonesia, and Mekong forest basins like Indonesia. And also, we need to understand how restoration for obvious reasons can play an important role, also to add value for environmental preservation and forest preservation.
It's not only one side of the coin, you have two sides of the coin, and you need to understand how this initiative of Common Home of Humanity will help us not only to preserve the critical aspect of our climate etc. etc. but also will help us to understand how we can act in a new direction, in a better way, in an inclusive way, bring people together and understand the natural reality, they are not necessarily the same around the world.
Even if you go into developing countries. When you discuss, for example, the global south, the reality is fully different than the challenges that we have in Brazil or that we have in South Africa. But we are together in a basic grouptackling climate change. So, this is fascinating to also have the BRIC club and you have the G20 club, you have a different reality- indeed, how can we bring people together? If you're able to understand common interests, if you're able to find a way to bring people together based on common regions, and how we can have new tracks for convergence issues; and how we can do this based on solutions. So, if you understand the challenge that we're having in Amazonia, this is the challenge, that's why I'm mentioning here, Kimberly. They are the issues for Amazonia, and if you understand that environmental crime, it needs to fight against, to tackle, and the need to go there. This is enforcement, environmental enforcement, this is law enforcement.
This is different than what I'm talking about here; why don't we discuss how we can use law to promote a new way to bring people together and to share responsibility and to protect the earth system. This is the debate. So, we have known issues on one side, you have the new issues on other sides. And my feeling, the Common Home of Humanity is trying, considering the umbrella of a new global pact for the environment, is trying to bring decisions in an innovative way, or these agendas, different ones innovative way, in such a way that if you have a common understanding about this, probably you have a new way to bring people together. And it makes sense in the future that you can have the protection of the earth system with shared responsibility, but with a newer political understanding of the global society, it's not only the government or public sector understanding it's about global society understanding, considering our challenges, indeed, how we can bring different nations together. And this, for me, is fascinating, because probably it is a new way to promote politics around the world and how we can also understand that the solution will not come from one institution, the solution will come from different people, different societies, or different institutions that have a common understanding about our future, the challenge to preserve the earth, the earth system, but the challenge to be together considering sustainable development for humankind.
Kimberly White
Thanks again for joining us, Izabella. Do you have any final thoughts for our audience?
Dr. Izabella Teixeira
Thank you very much for this opportunity to dialogue and for this interview. I think that this is an important comment, consider the last question. To be an ambassador, it's a provocative task not only for myself but for people around the world. We need to provoke people to go out of their comfort zone. Okay, and based on fear and our assets and our abilities as a species, and not based on fear and risks and to manage our comfort zone. Come on. We need to be out of the box, and I hope that the new box can be a green one.
Kimberly White
All right, and there you have it. Not only are we connected through nature, but also through the challenges we face as a global society. Using sustainability as the issue that brings us together. We can create a new way forward, an inclusive way forward built on a common understanding of the shared connection between humankind, nature, and the earth system. The proposal from the Common Home of Humanity provides a new way to bring society together to share responsibility, protecting the Earth System. That is all for today, and thank you for joining us for this episode of Common Home Conversations Beyond UN75. Please subscribe, share, and be sure to tune in next Wednesday to continue the conversation with our special guest, Paulo Magalhães, Founder and President of the Common Home of Humanity. And visit us at www.ThePlanetaryPress.com for more episodes and the latest news in sustainability, climate change, and the environment.
Kimberly White
Hello and welcome to Common Home Conversations. Today we are joined by María Espinosa, President of the 73rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly. She also served as the Ecuadorian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Coordinating Minister of Human Heritage, and Minister of National Defense. Ms. Espinosa is the first ambassador of the Common Home of Humanity. Thank you for joining us.
Ms. Espinosa, you have been a real trailblazer throughout your career; you were the first woman to become the Permanent Representative of Ecuador to the United Nations. And you were the first female Latin American to become president of the UN General Assembly, and only the fourth woman to hold that position in the 75-year history of the United Nations. Tell us, what was it about the proposal from the Common Home of Humanity that stood out to you and made you decide to become their first Ambassador?
María Espinosa
Well, it's been such a privilege to be requested by the Common Home of Humanity to become their first ambassador, or goodwill ambassador, I would call it. Because I think that they are looking at the earth system, the planet as a holistic container of relationships, and I am convinced that one of the core redefinitions that we need currently is to think about a new pact between society and planet Earth. And we need a new social contract among humans to establish not only harmony in our relationships between our humankind, but in our relationships with our planet, because unfortunately, we have taken nature and its cycles for granted. And the rights of nature meaning nature, not as an object that we can use, endless affecting and harming its cycles, it's right to regenerate and to leave simply now, so I saw in the Common Home of Humanity proposal, this holistic view, the systemic view of planet Earth, but also at the possibility of advocating for a new social contract between humans and nature.
Kimberly White
We would love to learn about what inspired you. Your educational background began in linguistics and then Amazonian studies, and you actually spent some time in the Amazon with some of those local communities. Can you tell us more about that and the impact it had on your career?
María Espinosa
Well, I think that my first contact with the Amazon region was a life changer, quite honestly. And that was at the very beginning of my career. I was offered a position to assess the bilingual education systems in the Amazon region in Ecuador, and a general assessment of the Amazon at the time. That was, well, a long time ago, around '87 or so. In my experience and work experience work was more in the highlands. I was fascinated by ethnolinguistics and the connection between language and culture, but more in the highlands and that opportunity that led me to the Amazon completely changed my entire passion for the Amazon, for the connection between Amazonian Indigenous peoples and their environment, I understood very quickly that language was only a vehicle means of communication but what was fascinating to me was to discover these very close connections between Indigenous peoples’ lifestyles and cultures and wisdom and knowledge through language but regarding the natural environment, in so many Indigenous, Amazonian Indigenous languages, you have, for example, so many different words to mean green. And Westerners as we say green and it's green, know they identify dark green, light green, different types of forests using different nomenclatures for green, a very fascinating taxonomies for traditional medicine for agriculture. It was an eye-opener. I was fascinated by that. And I was so much then connected and attracted to, to this relationship between culture and nature and the policymaking in that's what changed very much the path of my career from linguistics to ecology to geography into these master's degree on Amazonian studies that was perfect at the time and as I spent several years working in the Amazon, working with Indigenous peoples, in small projects, to improve their income to connect, Indigenous peoples to more economic opportunities to improve the quality of their education, and the access of young Indigenous women and men, to our universities, etc., etc. And that was at the end of the 80s. I also joined forces with Indigenous organizations of the Amazon in their struggle for their territorial rights, which is a big thing. And it was, I would say, quite a successful struggle because a big part of the Amazon, especially in Ecuador, belongs to Indigenous peoples. They do have collective rights to their territories. So I was also in a way in a very modest way, but part of that struggle I worked with Indigenous women a lot in their economic and political empowerment. I work with Indigenous women in preparation. That was also a long time ago, but to prepare their participation and involvement with the Beijing conference 25 years ago, so it's been a love story with the Amazon with the Amazonian Indigenous peoples in Amazonian Indigenous organizations.
Kimberly White
And Indigenous peoples play a very important role in combating the climate crisis; approximately a quarter of the world's land surface, which is home to some very important carbon sinks, is owned or managed by Indigenous peoples. Do you think that the proposal from the Common Home of Humanity can help to support Indigenous peoples and the protection of their lands?
María Espinosa
I think that you're bringing a very critical issue to the conversation, which is climate change, and how it is that our human societies are responding to this critical challenge. And I wouldn't even call it a challenge anymore. It's a climate crisis, what we are facing. So it's a whole of society responsibility, but of course, above all of our leaders. In every report that you read, even the pre-COVID reports, on implementation of the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals on implementation of the Paris Agreement, we see that there is a huge emissions gap and by the way, there is a report called the emissions gap report saying that we are not doing our homework properly. So if we continue with the same trend, the climate crisis is going to wipe out our economies, our future, our ecosystem services, everything. So it's going to create a massive movement of people, massive migration, climate refugees. And not by the hundreds, but by the millions, if things continue as they are. And we were speaking about the Amazon, yes. The Amazon is a huge carbon sink. And unfortunately, we are seeing frightening devastation. Destruction of the Amazon basin and this does not only affect climate change, speeds up climate change, but really that kind of depletion and destruction really has an impact in the lifestyles and livelihoods of local communities and Indigenous peoples of the Amazon. So the situation is not very promising, but we shouldn't lose hope. You know, I'm a stubborn optimist. I still believe in the power of cooperation, of solidarity, of a strong multilateral system, of the role of the United Nations, of the possibility of really building this new social pact, which is the global pact of the environment, which is a very, very promising project.
Kimberly White
So the Global Pact for the environment, which you just mentioned, was proposed and discussed for the first time during your term as UN General Assembly President. Why is this initiative so important? And what do you think the global pact needs to address?
María Espinosa
A global pact for the environment, it should be a declaration of principles, and but of course, this declaration of principles cannot be more of the same, but they need to redefine, rethink, even I would say transform the relationship between society, the economy, politics, and nature. I was mentioning that at the beginning, Kimberly, I think that that's exactly what the pact for the environment should be about. It is intended not to overlap or duplicate, but more to be an umbrella, a scaffold of already existing multilateral environmental agreements. And I think at the end of the day, the main objective of the pact is bolstering the environmental law system, at all levels, from the local to the international to the regional. And I think that a pact of that sort would be, for sure, I'm convinced, a great helper to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, the 2030 Agenda. So I think it has a tremendous potential and power, just if we think that if we only consider that there are more than 250, I hope I'm not saying the wrong number, but I'm pretty sure that it's more than 250 environmental multilateral agreements that most countries have signed to. There is no mechanism of looking at environmental international law from an interconnected holistic perspective. In other words, from this earth system perspective that we are discussing and that the Common Home of Humanity's using as a motto, so, there is no monitoring mechanism regarding the implementation of these 250 environmental multilateral agreements. So, we are lacking coherence, interconnectedness, coordination. And, and I think this is what I would call an epistemological contradiction. I don't know if it's the right way to call it, but there is a profound contradiction between the subject matter if we want to call it that way. And because nature, the environment, the earth system are, by definition, systemic, indivisible, interdependent. So, you cannot have 250 or more multilateral agreements on the environment that are not properly interconnected and where there is no accountability, where there is no coherence. It's very strange, but we look separately, oceans on one side and wetlands on the other side, air pollution, the ozone layer, climate, biodiversity as separate entities. So nature does not work like that. I don't know if this message is clear, but you cannot have an international law on biodiversity and a separate on migratory species, for example. You cannot have the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea on one side and the Convention on Climate on the other side, you cannot have the forest principles to deal with forests, but a separate body to deal with the climate, the UN Convention on Climate Change, etc. It's good that they continue to exist, but we do need an umbrella, an overarching, you know, a rational set of principles that can make sense of all these sectoral approaches to the earth system and nature. So I think that is a critical aspect to stress, to underline, the need for a global pact for the environment.
Kimberly White
So, would you say that we need a conceptual evolution to make it possible to address issues such as climate change that transcend borders?
María Espinosa
Absolutely, yeah. You know, the earth system, ecosystems, nature, they have no clue about our national borders. If you look at the ocean, the dynamics of rivers, the dynamics of forests, if you look at the Amazon forest, and the very existence of the Amazon forest is through there. The life that happens not at the soil level, but up there in the green part of the forest, energy interconnections flux. So the idea of national borders is really artificial. So we need when you think about the environment and when you think about the relationship between societies, the economy, our consumption and production patterns. We should not think about a specific country or a community, but about the planet as a whole. And with the COVID-19, I think that we have learned a hard lesson is that we are so frail as a species, we are so vulnerable, and our strength lies on our interconnectedness and on our capacity of acting and doing together, and the earth system is our common heritage. So yes, we do need to upscale our theoretical tools, our thinking, about how to address, deal, and care for our common heritage, our commons, our atmosphere, oceans, biodiversity should be considered our global commons.
Kimberly White
And as we learned in our interview with Will Steffen last week, we're all global citizens. It doesn't matter, you know, whether we're from the United States, Australia, Ecuador, we all live on the same planet. So it really is in all of our best interest to protect our common home. Now, we're living in an increasingly fragmented world and seeing a rise of nationalism. Given that, how do you see that the proposal from the Common Home of Humanity can come to be realized?
María Espinosa
I think that, and I'm sorry that I'm bringing up the COVID-19 crisis, just having a reference to that all the time because that's the new world that we're living in. And we have lost so many lives, and all the dysfunctions or malfunctions of our societies have we have seen like a magnifying glass effect, looking at all the inequalities or the difficulties, how important it is to have a strong state, strong public health systems, etc. And I think that we have learned, perhaps the hard way, that we are better when we act together, and this is not just a nice phrase, it is a matter of life or death, in this case, is literal, and the level of how much we protect ourselves, we respect others, the social distancing, the precautions, we need to have, in all of that, to care about others has been a very, very strong lesson and the lesson is that no country is safe until every country is safe, when you talk about a pandemic, but the same goes for climate change. The same goes for the extinction crisis. I spent several years of my career working for the world conservation union, for IUCN. And there was the Red List of species that were about to go extinct. But this list instead of decreasing has increased in an amazing, incredible way. And when you look at all the assessments, environmental assessments, the two weak points are the extinction crisis, the loss of biodiversity and of course, the climate crisis, and believe me that these are not issues that can be solved by one country alone, or by one president or leader alone. It really requires a strong, multilateral system, a strong concerted action.
Kimberly White
That is concerning. The COVID-19 pandemic has really, in a way, shown us how interconnected we are as we face the same global problem, at the same time; just like climate change. Which gives us a unique perspective moving forward. Now, in June, you joined a group of world leaders that were calling on the G20 to further the implementation of the G20 action plan and have a more strongly coordinated global response to the health, economic and social emergencies that we face. What actions should the G20 take to address not only the global pandemic but also the climate crisis?
María Espinosa
Well, the G20 is a group of powerful economies around the world. I would say the 20 strongest and more powerful countries and economies. And it means that they have a special responsibility to address the key, the key challenges of humanity. Not only to respond to the COVID crisis, but in terms of the economic recovery packages, by the billions, $11 trillion of recovery packages for the richer countries. So, my worry, but also my hope, is that these economic recovery packages are going to invest in areas that are greener, that are more sustainable, that guarantee most safe employment, employment with dignity and under the right standards, and guarantee also a solidarity and cooperation with the global south in terms of their bilateral debts with the developing countries in terms of providing the necessary funding to the Green Climate Fund, and meeting their commitments under the Paris Agreement and their mitigation targets, their nationally determined contributions, etc. And we have seen that some countries are very serious about it and the very serious mean to become carbon neutral countries by 2050. Unfortunately, the last co2 and gap emissions report, I think it's called the emissions gap report of last year, it's very clear that the 20 countries are not all meeting their commitments and targets. So, they are wealthier, these countries have more means, are powerful in the international arena, and therefore they have greater responsibility domestically, regionally, but also in solidarity and cooperation with the global south.
Kimberly White
Okay, so you mentioned the emissions gap report. And I believe the report found that global greenhouse gas emissions need to fall by more than seven points; I believe it was 7.6% each year over the next decade if we're going to meet our goals for the Paris Agreement. The G20 represents nearly 80% of global emissions, so it's imperative that, as the Secretary-General says, that they really increase their ambition and increase their climate action. And I feel the COVID-19 recovery efforts offer us an opportunity to do just that, and now we are already seeing several nations call for that green recovery.
María Espinosa
Indeed, I think that in the green recovery, of course, requires low carbon recovery, but in the green recovery, it also means green jobs, fair jobs, means to have women and men get the same salaries for the same jobs to really close the gender salary gap, which is now more than 20%. You get 20% less salary just because you're a woman, even if you do the same job and you have the same qualifications. So the green recovery, and when we speak about the Global Green New Deal, etc. it's a shorthand for a new era, in our way of thinking, in our way of, it's a new paradigm, it's a new development paradigm at the end of the day. That is free of discrimination, that is free of exclusion, that really walks the talk on this phrase of the 2030 Agenda, leaving no one behind. It's societies that are climate conscious, environment conscious, Earth system conscious. And I think that the best help we can have is this umbrella of principles, which basically is the aim of the global pact for the environment.
Kimberly White
You have been a real champion for gender equality, and we've touched a little bit about this throughout our conversation here. I think that one of the most powerful change agents that society overlooks is women. Do you believe that advancing gender equality and empowering women can deliver cross-sectoral long term solutions and results to the climate crisis?
María Espinosa
Oh, absolutely, Kimberly. Not only to respond to the climate crisis, I think that there has been, I don't know how many studies, numbers, data showing that societies that are more equal and that, have consciously, closed the gender gap and the equality gap are countries that are more peaceful. And let's only remember at the acknowledgment of the UN Security Council that connected climate change to the women, peace, and security agenda, for example. And that was acknowledged internationally. The resolution on women, peace, and security is having its 20th birthday this October. And there is a strong connection between climate security and the role of women. And there is also a strong connection between, there is an index that is called, I think it's the peacefulness index, and the countries that perform better on gender equality and women empowerment are in general countries that have a peace index that is higher that are more peaceful societies and that is a fact; but unfortunately, the situation with women's rights and women's empowerment, it's not really very promising it is the same as with climate. And here, there are figures that are staggering 35 million women in need of humanitarian aid and 35 million, that's a lot. And one in five refugee women experience sexual violence when we speak about where women refugees, for example. So the numbers are not right in terms of violence, in terms of conflict, and very few, less than 7% women in peacekeeping operations very little, I think it's less than 7% of women participating or being active in peace processes worldwide, when evidence shows that when women are involved in peace processes the agreements are more likely to last longer. And this is just very concrete data and evidence that is out there. And you have, I think it's 85-86 countries out of the 193 countries that have never had a woman as a head of state or government and little more than 20% women in government cabinets. If you look at women parliamentarians, there it's less than 25%, meaning that 75% of parliamentarians worldwide are still men. So what is important here, Kimberly, it's not about arithmetics, it's not about numbers. It's not only about that, but if we are half of the world's population, we deserve to be represented, 50/50 at least, and it's not happening. And it's not, I was saying not only a matter of meeting the quota, meeting the 50%. It is that us women, we bring quality, we bring different perspectives, we bring efficiency, it is a value, our work and contribution to society and gives a value added to our democracies, as well. So it is not only about quantity, it's about quality, and it's been proven in all fields and areas of our social and economic life. It has been true. If you look, for example, at successful countries in terms of handling, managing, and responding to the COVID crisis there are incredible examples of women, female heads of state and government. Look at New Zealand, look at Finland, look at Iceland, look at Barbados, and the incredible leadership of Mia Mottley and not only as Prime Minister of Barbados but as the chair of the Caribbean community. And here we have more examples, successful examples of the handling of the pandemic by women, heads of state and government. So it's not only a tokenistic thing, you know, and we are this year, we are commemorating the 25 years of the Beijing, the historical Beijing conference and its Platform for Action. And I have the privilege to sit on the steering committee of Beijing+25. There is a lot of movement among the feminist world. There is the Generation Equality Forum is in the making, with incredible participation and voices from civil society, and six action coalitions including a coalition on climate on the environment and a very important process for new compact on women, peace, and security. So there is movement, strong voices from women worldwide. I have the privilege to serve as a goodwill ambassador of FILAC, which is the fund for Indigenous peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean. And there is a lot of movement from Indigenous women of the Americas as well. So there is hope. And there is hope, there is opportunity, and we have had the chance for time, for dialogue and for creativity in all these, I think, really gives more opportunity possibility and push to the much needed global pact for the environment.
Kimberly White
That reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from Mary Robinson, the former President of Ireland. She once said that if we took away the barriers of women's leadership, we would solve the climate change problem a lot faster. And I think that's true about a lot of things that we face as a society.
María Espinosa
Hundred percent. You know, we share, I have the privilege to share so many spaces with Mary Robinson, and I have a great admiration and respect for her, for her contribution to the international arena and she has really walked the talk in a way. So, I think she's totally right. When women were given the opportunity, they showed talent and efficiency, to deal with the COVID-19, and when we are given the opportunity, I'm convinced that we will be a great contribution to fight climate change and to overcome the climate crisis, that's for sure.
Kimberly White
Absolutely, I think it's really imperative that we recognize the gender climate connection more globally as well as locally. And now, let's talk more about the Common Home of Humanity. The magnitude and urgency of the pending climate catastrophe calls for a mechanism to design and implement global public policy- the creation of instruments and institutions that enable collective action. Will establishing global legal support, such as recognizing the earth system as a common heritage of humankind, help us to avert this catastrophe?
María Espinosa
Well, I think that first of all, I think that we all agree, and we have mentioned that before as well. You know, climate, the way I see it is that the climate crisis is not the problem by itself. And I hope that this doesn't lead to misinterpretation, but it's not the problem. It is the symptom it is like when you have a fever, high fever, and that's the symptom in that very much, I connect with, high fever of the planet, that's exactly what climate change is about. So...
Kimberly White
I like that.
María Espinosa
Yeah, exactly. It is a symptom. But then you have to see why that you have a high fever, the symptom, either you have an infection, you have the COVID-19, you know, something is wrong. And the something is wrong is precisely our production and consumption patterns. What is wrong, the problem is our development model, and that is what we need to fix. So, climate change is an indicator, the extinction crisis. And the fires in the Amazon are symptoms that society, our human society, is dysfunctional. I am sorry to say that, but that's exactly what we need to fix. And to think about our global commons, our shared responsibility, the need for concerted action is what is really going to fix the symptom. So if you don't understand that you have the COVID-19 and you need a treatment, your fever is not going to go away. You know, if you have an infection, if you don't take antibiotics, I don't take antibiotics that much. I'm more closer to the to other types of medicine but, let's see, you take antibiotics and you decrease your fever, you decrease the symptom, but I don't know how much that you have healed your infection and sorry to use this metaphor, but sometimes we need to realize that climate change is not about again arithmetics of mitigation, arithmetics of decarbonizing the economies and decarbonizing our production and our functioning as a society. It is a matter of a culture of an attitude towards our global commons. And I think that's exactly what it comes into play when we think about the need of an overarching set of principles about this global pact for the environment, and then this has to be part of this new post-COVID-19 social contract. And so, I think that is the opportunity that we have been given by the terrible, painful pandemic that we are undergoing currently. And I think that we need to address the very definition, and agree on a functional operational definition, of the global commons in that we need to manage in a sustainable, responsible way our global commons. And that's perhaps what is at the core of, of this.
Kimberly White
I think that was a great metaphor to explain the issues we are currently facing. What do you think we need to do as a society moving forward?
María Espinosa
Well, I think that we need to, we need a whole waking up of societies, but especially of young people. I am sure that young leaders, youth in general, they have been affected terribly by the current economic crisis. Unemployment, insecurity, fear has hit and affected everybody, as we said, but in a particular way, the vulnerable groups and in particular, I don't consider women among the vulnerable because, 50% of the world's population, the same goes for young people and I think that sometimes I hear: but what is the UN going to do? What is the government going to do, what is X or Y, our leaders need to act- and I agree, we need strong leadership, we need cooperation and collective action, but we need also citizens involvement, to exercise our condition as global citizens, and we all have a role to play, we should all become advocates of this new social contract between societies and nature of the need to have a global pact for the environment. So what I would say that it is a call to humanity to citizens around the world to be more aware and more responsible and more active in this conversation, and we should make sure that we don't leave anyone behind, but not only in achieving the 2030 Agenda, the Sustainable Development Goals but leave no one behind the opportunity to building back better collectively.
Kimberly White
Absolutely, we cannot return to business as usual, as you said. That's what got us in this mess in the first place. So this is really a great time to take this opportunity to build back better, and I think that the proposal from the Common Home of Humanity provides us with a framework to support those efforts.
María Espinosa
Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. And we are going to continue to work together to make it happen, and I think we should use all of our spaces of influence, I say that in a very modest and humble way, but in the places that we interact, now we interact a lot, unfortunately, using zoom and other platforms, but we should make sure that we convey that message. We have to make sure that to become, and we should all be, ambassadors of a new world that is more humane and that is more sustainable, that is more respectful, that is more grounded in solidarity and love because that's, I think what, what we need today. And of course, to push our leaders to take the responsibility as well as I'm a strong defender also of, of the work of the United Nations. I think the UN is irreplaceable. We are commemorating the 75 years of its foundation. And I think that it's our Common Home just to paraphrase the Common Home for Humanity, but that that's our umbrella. And I think that when I'm told, but the UN should do this, and that and I say, well, but who is the UN? We are the UN. We are responsible for its future and for improving its performance from different corners and paths of life, but we are the UN, it's our creation, and that's why we should defend and improve how it performs.
Kimberly White
Alright, well, there you have it. As we embark into life post-COVID-19, we have the chance to build back better through the power of cooperation, solidarity, a strong multilateral system, and a new social contract between ourselves and nature. The proposal from the Common Home of Humanity will help bolster our environmental law system, providing the necessary framework to address the issues we face as a global community moving forward. That is all for today, and thank you for joining us for this episode of Common Home Conversations Beyond UN75. Please subscribe, share, and be sure to tune in next Wednesday to continue the conversation with our special guest, Dr. Izabella Teixeira, former Minister for the Environment of Brazil and Co-Chair of the United Nations Environment Programme's International Resource Panel. And visit us at www.ThePlanetaryPress.com for more episodes and the latest news in sustainability, climate change, and the environment.
Kimberly White
Hello and Welcome to Common Home Conversations. Today we are joined by renowned climate change expert and earth system scientist Will Steffen. Will is an Emeritus Professor with the Fenner School of Environment and Society at Australian National University. He also serves as a Councillor with the Climate Council of Australia and as Co-Chair of the Scientific Committee of the Common Home of Humanity. Thank you for joining us today.
Will Steffen
My pleasure.
Kimberly White
So Will, what does it mean to be an Earth System scientist? What are you currently focusing on?
Will Steffen
Well, an earth system scientist is someone who studies our home planet but studies that as a single, integrated system. And that's a relatively new area of science because the natural sciences, in general, likes to look at pieces of a system, pull them out and study them in great detail. Whether it's pieces of an ecosystem or part of the climate system, you might be studying what's happening to the ice sheets or what's happening to oceans circulation and so on. And so that's the way natural scientist has worked for, for decades and centuries. But in fact, a new area of science called complex system science has been developing, trying to put the pieces back together and understand how systems work as complete systems. And they have things like emergent properties, things that you can't understand just by looking at the pieces of the system in isolation. So now we're applying this sort of thinking to the earth as a whole. And we call it the Earth system because, in fact, it has properties that are characteristic of the earth as a whole. And it has processes which change these properties. Now, in a practical sense, that means that as we look at the earth system today, it's changing very rapidly. It's moving away from an 11,700 year, very stable state, which we call the Holocene or the geologists call the Holocene, and it's moving away from that at a very rapid rate because of human pressures. So we're trying to understand what is it that is driving these enormous changes. And there are many interesting ideas here. One of the most important ones, though, are tipping points, which are parts of the system. When you push them, they appear to be resistant to change; when you push them just a little bit too far, they can flip or move into another, another state. And some of these are linked to form what we call tipping cascades. So this really is, if you like, is the engine that's driving changes to the earth system. So we need to understand low, gradual changes. But we also really need to understand how these tipping points may lead to more rapid change and changes that will be very, very hard to reverse. So just again, in summary, what Earth system scientists try to do is we're trying to understand our planet as a single complex system, one that has its own property. At the planetary scale, and one which is being pushed very hard by human activities. So basically, that's what we're trying to do.
Kimberly White
That is very impressive- sounds like a fascinating field of study to be in. I know that there are some in the scientific community that have stated we have entered the Anthropocene due to the building pressures from humankind and you mentioned tipping cascade points. Can you elaborate further on this?
Will Steffen
Yeah, I can give a common analogy in everyday life is if, say someone goes out on a lake with a kayak and is paddling around, you can jiggle that kayak a little bit, then it returns in its upright, you can paddle alone. But if you tip it too far, it flips all the way over, and you're underwater, and you've got a scramble to get back to the surface. And that's a tipping point, almost literally, you've tipped it past the point of no return, and the kayak flips. So that's a very simple analogy toward parts of the earth system, which simulate similar behavior. A good example of that might be the sea ice that is floating over the Arctic Ocean. So how does that work? Well, in the Northern Hemisphere, summertime, there's a lot of sunlight over the Arctic Ocean. But if it's covered with ice, that white ice reflects the sunlight, affects virtually all of it and helps keep it cool. But as the earth is warming that summertime sea ice is shrinking, it doesn't cover as much of the Arctic Ocean. So as it shrinks, it uncovers darker ocean water that absorbs more sunlight, obviously than the ice does. And it adds to the regional warming over the North Pole. And of course, as the North Pole warms more, the ice shrinks more. And as the ice shrinks more, it warms more. So you see what we call a feedback loop. So a lot of these tipping elements have these feedback loops. And the point here, what's the tipping point? The point is once the ice shrinks far enough, you cannot stop the process. In other words, that feedback loop will take it all the way to an ice-free Arctic, no matter what we as humans do. So that's a good easy to understand example of what a tipping point actually is. There are other ones associated with ice, too. If you look at the Greenland ice sheet, that's that big massive mound of ice that sits on top of the island of Greenland, that's starting to melt, and it's melting at an increasing rate. And one of the important processes there is that as it melts, it gets lower. And as it gets lower, it moves into a warmer climate, which makes it melt more, and then it moves even lower. And you can see again, you have an internal feedback that this is going to cause the ice sheet to diminish very rapidly no matter what we do. I'll give you one more example of an individual, a tipping point one that isn't associated with ice. And that's the Amazon rainforest. That's that big rain forest, beautiful forest in the Amazon basin, the biggest tropical forest on the planet, but that is now being threatened by two interacting processes. One is direct human deforestation. And that's obviously involved with politics. It's involved with globalization, big investment companies investing in deforestation and conversion to soya or beef, or so on. And what that does is it reduces the recycling of water in that system. So basically, as the name indicates, it's a rain forest. So it needs a lot of rain to be a healthy forest. This rain comes from two sources. One is evaporation from the forest itself; it's got its own recycling system. So roughly half its rainfall actually is generated by the forest itself. The other half comes in from the Atlantic Ocean, so it's moist climate weather systems rather than come in and drop rainfall. So it's about 50/50. So as we deforest, more of that tropical forest, we are reducing the amount of internal recycling of water via the evaporation from the forest. At the same time, the Atlantic circulation is changing because of climate change. And that's reducing the rainfall coming in from the ocean. So the Amazon forest is hitting a double whammy. So it's going to hit a point where it doesn't get enough rain, it starts burning more often, that reduces the internal cycling even more. And it becomes a self-reinforcing feedback again, this idea of a feedback that will convert the forest or most of it into what we call a Savanna, a sort of woodland grassland, much drier system. So there are three examples of what tipping points are, what internal feedbacks are. Now, the word cascade comes in here too. And that's because a lot of these individual tipping points or tipping elements are actually linked. And the ones I mentioned are actually a good example of that. Because as you lose more Arctic sea ice, it causes regional warming, regional warming increases the loss of ice in Greenland. What happens to that ice that's melting on Greenland? Well, it flows into the North Atlantic Ocean. And it's cold, and it's freshwater. So it sits on the surface of the North Atlantic, that actually slows down the North Atlantic circulation, which in turn reduces the rainfall over the Amazon. So the fact that we are losing sea ice over the Arctic is influencing what happens in the Amazon. So I could go on and on, we've met quite a few of these tipping points. They operate in most parts of the planet, and many of them are linked. So the interesting thing is when you start looking at these linkages, you can see that you could get up a global tipping cascade initiated sometime in the future, which basically would take the earth system out of human control or influence, and it would move to a different state, probably a much hotter state than we're anticipating and one with very different rainfall regimes. So this is why tipping points, feedback processes, and tipping cascades are really central concepts that we need to understand how the earth system operates and how it's changing.
Kimberly White
It really is quite concerning that we have already met several of these tipping points and are on the path to meet more. Rampant deforestation is a problem we are seeing globally but especially, as you mention, in the Amazon. Last year, it was estimated that the Amazon rainforest lost an area the size of a football field every minute. There have been some recent studies that have shown that deforestation is leading to more disease outbreaks in humans. This brings me to my next question. One of the main topics of 2020 has obviously been the COVID-19 pandemic. The wildlife trade has been linked to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic as well as several other major pandemics and epidemics in past years, including SARS, MERS, and Ebola. The trade has also aided in the transmission of pathogens that cause bird flu, swine flu, and more. Are there connections between COVID-19, climate change, and environmental disruption?
Will Steffen
There has been some work on this, and it's more broadly called what is the connection between biosphere degradation, which is another word for environmental change or disruption, and the so-called zoonotic diseases, diseases that jump from animals into humans. And of course, this is what's happened with COVID-19. And some of the other diseases, as you mentioned, the link there is that as we continue to degrade the biosphere that is deforest areas, disrupt ecosystems, and so on. It increases the probability of these diseases jumping into humans because humans are now coming into much closer contact at the deforestation fronts, with these ecosystems which are being disrupted. That's research in its early stage. And I think we need to do more of that to try to pin down exactly what the connection might be. I think the connection with climate change isn't as direct as that was, as it is with environmental degradation. That's the more direct link. But in terms of, again, as we talked about complex systems, climate change can actually exacerbate also, environmental degradation or disruption. And in that regard, it could also be a contributing factor by increasing droughts, increasing fires, and so on. So again, this is a really good example, I think of a very complex set of interactions that eventually link very dangerous diseases to humans. But ultimately, it's pretty clear that if we have a stable climate and healthy intact biospheres, we actually do reduce the risk of these so-called zoonotic diseases, like COVID-19. So yes, there is a link. It's, I think it's a fairly complex link. And it's one that we actually need to study a lot more before we understand it in great detail.
Kimberly White
So essentially, everything is connected. You're based in Australia, which has been sort of a ground zero for climate change. As much of the world has seen, Australia experienced devastating bushfires in the past year. Climate change has also significantly impacted the Great Barrier Reef, where there has been massive coral bleaching. Can you tell us more about some of the adverse effects of climate change that you are seeing in Australia?
Will Steffen
Yeah, we've had a pretty horrible summer, so our summer 2019 2020 summer, so our summers go over two calendar years from December through February. But what we saw is an enormous increase in both the area burned and the intensity of these fires. Our eucalypt forests are fire-prone anyway, fire is a natural part of those ecosystems. On an average year, about 2% of the Eastern Australian forests burn; this past season, 21%, a tenfold increase, burned. The season started much earlier. So it was actually starting in August, September up in Queensland, which is just as when winter is ending, and then it moved down the coast as the summertime conditions came into play in New South Wales and then down in Victoria. But they burned for many months. The intensity was enormous. They caused their own fire weather. We had firestorms, tornadoes caused by the fires themselves. They were so disruptive and so damaging that one of the aircraft that is used for fighting fires, in fact, unfortunately, it was some Californian firefighters who've come across to help us, but they weren't familiar with the intensity of the fires that are generated over here. And unfortunately, they got caught in a tornado, and it took their C-130 down, crashed and killed all three of them. Overall fatalities were between 450 and 500 people were killed. Much of that by smoke inhalation about 35 to 40 were directly burned to death, about 3 billion animals, kangaroos, koalas. Other marsupials, about 3 billion, were burnt to death. Pretty horrible way to go. And a lot of there was a lot of psychological damage done to humans both from the fires themselves from having to evacuate several communities along the coast. We're actually isolated and pinned against the ocean by the fires, and they had to be rescued by the Navy. There was no way they could get out. Here in Canberra, which is the capital city, we're a city of about half a million people. We aren't on the coast we're embedded in forests up inland. And we had a very dangerous situation. We had a big fire front coming in from the south, and it came within about 10 kilometers in the southern suburbs, and we were put on alert to evacuate the city. Three major roads come out of Canberra, but two of those were already cut by other fires. So we were facing a potential disaster of not being able to evacuate our city with enormous fire coming in. Fortunately, the wind shifted last minute, and we were spared. But this sort of traumatic event was played over and over again, right along eastern Australia. The estimates by the medical people or health experts were that well over half of the entire Australian population was affected negatively by the fires either psychologically or directly physically. So it was a massive event that we weren't prepared for in any way. Now, you might ask, what's the connection between climate change, and there's some pretty strong connections; we just had a couple of extremely hot years, hottest year on record, 2019 was well above average temperature. And at the same time, many of the areas in which these forest grow had been subjected to several years of very dry conditions well below average rainfall, severe drought. So basically, these forests were just set up as a tinderbox, a massive 3000-kilometer long tinderbox. And when it took off, there was no stopping it. Some colleagues of mine who are professional firefighters, they said they've never seen anything like these conditions that they had no way of controlling. They just had to turn and run for their lives as well. So it’s by far the most traumatic and dramatic catastrophe that we have seen here in many, many decades. But the interesting thing you mentioned to the Great Barrier Reef, we were so focused on the fires and surviving the fires and coping with them. That sort of in the background, sort of quietly. The worst mass bleaching event that the Great Barrier Reef has ever experienced was occurring at the same time. So the Great Barrier Reef is the largest marine organism or ecosystem on the planet. It stretches for 2300 kilometers along the coast of Queensland and up toward New Guinea. This was the first time that all 2300 kilometers had been bleached. We had severe bleaching events before. In fact, in the last five years, this was the third extreme, severe mass bleaching event. The upshot of this is over half of the Great Barrier Reef is now dead. So 50% or more of the hard corals are actually killed and not just bleach, they can't recover. And so the reef is in a very bad condition at the moment. And unfortunately, sea surface temperatures are predicted to continue to rise for at least a couple of decades that's built into the climate system. So the prognosis is not very good at all. I think what we're trying to do down here is to hopefully stabilize the climate within the Paris target range. Hopefully, we will retain some remnant reef, some small fraction of the reefs will still come through that, and then we can try to regrow and recover as we stabilize the climate. But just in summary, the summer of 2019 2020 was something that was way outside anything we had experienced in decades, or perhaps ever here, in terms of the ferocity of the fires, the damage that they did, the enormous areas that were burned and the same time off the coast in the water. Enormous bleaching event on the Great Barrier Reef. So if we ever needed a wake-up call that the earth system was getting out of control, this was it.
Kimberly White
Absolutely heartbreaking- I cannot even begin to imagine the scene there in Australia. I saw some of the media coverage showing firefighters out there bravely risking their lives as well as the aftermath, showing the impacts on wildlife and the environment. So Earth System science seems to create a new way of thinking about ourselves and our relationship with our planet and how it is all connected, which kind of ties into what we were just talking about. Do you think that this requires a fresh legal approach that is scientifically friendly and has a better capacity to explain this highly connected way of functioning?
Will Steffen
Yes, I think that's a very good point. And what are the problems we're facing in dealing with climate change and dealing with biosphere degradation, like what's happening in the Amazon, or in other parts of the world where it's direct deforestation and degradation of ecosystems, that shows you that we have a huge legal void in how we manage ourselves and our relationship to the earth system. And of course, our legal systems are built on the nation state idea that's been around for 200 or 300 years. And we have extremely weak global governance. We have the United Nations; they try to do the best they can. But it's still domination by nation states and their own self-interest. Now, that might work when we humans were a small world on a big planet. In other words, when there were many fewer of us, we didn't have the powerful technologies we do today and so on. We could live within the limits of the earth system, and we did for hundreds of thousands of years. But now, in 2020, it's a massively different situation. Now we are a big world on a small planet. And that changes the game entirely. And we completely lack the legal instruments and legal framework we need in this new situation of the 21st century. So basically, Earth System Science, I think it's the scientific underpinning that's required to build a new legal framework. Because Earth System Science says, We are on one planet, which has one single life support system. So it's always very important to say Earth system in the singular, not Earth systems, but Earth system. So that really then translates into our common home, it is our home. There's no way we're all going to move to Mars or somewhere else. This is it. So we have to learn to live within the characteristics and limits of our planet as a single system. So the idea of the common home is the very first step to get governance that is consistent with our system science, with what the earth system is actually telling us means we actually have to recognize that legally, it doesn't yet exist legally, nation states do. Australia exists as a nation state, so does the United States, and there are about 200 of us around the planet that exist as nation states. And we somehow try to muddle through governing the earth system, we have some regulations about what can be done in oceans, but then nation states claim oceans, ocean economic zones. So we claim parts of the earth system and then fight over who has rights to fish in those or whatever. So it's a, it's a very, very incomplete, incompetent system from an earth system perspective. So the first thing we have to do is recognize the earth system as our common home. So we have to legally recognize a system, an intangible system. So we recognize territories, we recognize the continent of Australia. North America has three countries, the United States, Canada, and Mexico. And they're defined, there is a border where Mexico ends in the United States begins and so on. So it's, it's divided up. But you can't do that with a system. You can't divide up ocean circulation, or atmospheric circulation, or the movement of carbon. That doesn't work. So we need to think of the software. Now obviously, that's hard for people to get their heads around. But legal people say we actually have precedents. We can actually do this. For example, we recognize copyright. So I've got lots of books here. I'm talking to you, I have a bookshelf up here, there is a physical book, it's made of paper, and it's got print, it's got ink on it, that is the physical book. But in fact, the real value of that book are the ideas that are in that book, and that's intangible. And I only get that through my own brain and interpreting patterns on pieces of paper. So the same thing with the earth system, there is a physical ocean, there are physical bits of land, but in fact, it's the system. It's the circulation. It's these tipping points. It's the long term changes, the long term patterns of stability that actually makes the planet habitable for humans and the rest of life. So I think it's an extremely important legal step that we have to do to say, alright, this is our home planet, it has to be recognized legally, as a system that we all depend on. And it's in our common interest to keep this system in a well-functioning state. So I think that really is the challenge in front of us now. In terms of the legal challenge of recognizing the earth system.
Kimberly White
Absolutely. And climate change doesn't recognize borders. It doesn't matter if you are in the United States, Canada, Australia- it is happening now and it is happening everywhere and it is happening at an alarming rate. For the sake of our global community, we need to do better. You're a part of an organization that is really working to make a difference about this. You are on the Scientific Committee at the Common Home of Humanity. Can you tell us more about this organization and how it can better address climate solutions?
Will Steffen
Well, the Common Home of Humanity is an organization that's designed to recognize the earth system as a single integrated system and push very hard for legal status. So, in other words, a global legal pact that recognizes the earth system, the software of the planet, and I think, to make that work in a legal sense, we need to have scientific backup. Because this is a new concept to a lot of people. It's a new concept, particularly to people who are not natural scientists who are in the legal profession, or our politicians or our economists, or other people in other spheres of academia or in politics, policy, and so on. There needs to be a solid scientific background, that first fully understands the earth as a single system. But I think really importantly, understands how this system operates. Because you know, it's not an even system. For example, the Amazon rainforest is extremely important for how the entire global system works. So who's responsible? It sits in 9 or 10 South American countries with much of it in Brazil. So to understand how important that is, you actually need to understand the science of how that system actually operates that rain forest system, how it metabolizes carbon, how it affects the climate, how it is affected by the climate. And this is what a common home is about, is that if we deforest the Amazon, it's actually going to affect rainfall over Australia, it's going to affect temperature over China. And we know this from global circulation models. This is what's going to happen. So it's in Australians’ interest to have a well functioning Amazon, just as much as it's in Chinese interest to have a well functioning Amazon. And also, of course, for Brazilians and South Americans. So, but to understand that and understand that we need a legal regime that recognizes this, you need the scientific underpinning as well. So I think this is a really, really good example of how the natural sciences can work with the legal profession, and ultimately, hopefully with economists, political scientists, and so on, to recognize our common home and then build. Hopefully, we get a legal recognition of the earth system as a system then build on that in terms of policies in terms of economic instruments that can help us reestablish the Amazon forest, regenerate forests and ecosystems elsewhere, protect ocean circulation. The basis for all of this has to be that we legally recognize our whole planet as our single common home.
Kimberly White
We are all global citizens, so these shared assets really concern everyone. As a scientist, what actions do you think must be taken right now to overcome the obstacles that have prevented us from reaching a global agreement?
Will Steffen
I think there are a number of things that have to be done. Straight away, I think we need to get a recognition of the common home legally. And the best way to do that, I still think, is through the United Nations system. It's going to take some effort, but I think just opening up the conversation is going to be really, really important. Perhaps the steps on that way, we need to develop some sort of legal recognition, for example, of the Amazon forest, and ways of managing it. So we need to, for example, interact with the finance sector. And I do some of that myself as an expert working under the Common Home of Humanity banner. We've talked to some of the big finance companies which are funding a lot of the deforestation, and a lot of them don't recognize the implications of what they're doing. They simply look at it economically, as alright, is this a good investment. Will it return money for our investors and so on. But when they're made aware of what's happening, not only just in Brazil but how this is influencing how the entire earth system works, that's something entirely new. So I think what we need to do now to overcome those obstacles is we have to have a multi-pronged approach, we have to work hard on the legal aspect that needs to go ahead through the UN system, and so on. But at the same time, we need to engage critical players in how the earth system is being degraded, the finance sector, the fishing industry, things like that. These initiatives are happening, we are starting to engage with these sectors. And so obviously, the fossil fuel sector is a very big one. It also tends to be a very resistant one, compared to say, the finance sector or the fishing sector, which are actually more open to talking about this. Perhaps because they're close, they're more closely related to the implications of damage of the systems they depend on. Fishing is a good example. Again, this is a global commons. The fish don't recognize zones that humans have artificially put up in the sea waters. So we need to manage as a common collective good, the fish in the ocean. And enlightened fishing companies are now starting to realize that they actually have to work together and not compete, to actually protect the fisheries in the ocean. Same thing started to happen with some big finance companies to understanding that if they undermine the Amazon forest, they're going to lose their investment, it's going to become worthless, as rain drops off and you can't grow soy, not enough grass for the cattle, they'll be in trouble. So I think that this two-pronged approach of you need the big, overarching common home legal recognition. And that's starting to happen through the UN system; we hope it comes to a positive conclusion. But at the same time, there are parts of the earth system that we can start tackling, using this common home idea and concept and framework to help us deal with some of these big issues. So, fortunately, things are starting to move. We've got a long way to go. But I think we're making some inroads, the biggest thing we have to do is change how people think, how they conceive of the planet, how they conceive of their actions, and the reverberations those actions have through the earth system. So it's an exciting time to be in this area of research. We've got a long way to go. But I think we've got an extremely exciting idea. And we're making good progress.
Kimberly White
Well, there you have it. Earth system science, a new area of science that gives us a new way of looking at our planet and how the Earth System is highly interconnected, functioning as a single integrated system- connecting us all. As you said, Will, we still have a long way to go, but the Common Home of Humanity certainly provides a beacon of hope moving forward. That is all for today and thank you for joining us for this episode of Common Home Conversations Beyond UN75. Please subscribe, share, and be sure to tune in next Wednesday to continue the conversation with our special guest, Maria Espinosa, President of the 73rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly. And visit us at www.ThePlanetaryPress.com for more episodes and the latest news in sustainability, climate change, and the environment.