Nazmul Huq Jean Hugé
Human Ecology Department Vrije Universiteit Brussel Brussels, Belgium
International Journal of Labour Research 2010 Vol. 2 Issue 2
T
he size and insularity of Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are char- acteristics often associated with vulnerability. SIDS were identified as a special group at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (FAO, 2010). They are especially vulnerable to climate change, due to their geographical location, their limited resource base and the strong influence of the oceanic circulation system. If no country is immune from the adverse impacts of climate change (World Bank, 2009a), the SIDS are more vulnerable as their climate is influenced by large ocean–atmosphere interactions such as trade winds, El Niño and the monsoons (UNFCCC, 2007). These climate characteristics, combined with their particular socio- economic situation, make SIDS – among which there are 12 Least Developed Countries (LDCs) – some of the most vulnerable countries to the effects of climate change (UNFCCC, 2007). The rise in sea level constitutes a major threat to the countries’ resource base and especially their agricul- tural sector, on which a large part of their populations depend. Within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), funds have been set up to support climate change adaptation efforts. The Least Developed Countries Fund has been used to support the preparation of National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs) by LDCs. NAPA preparation is a prerequisite for accessing funding from the UNFCCC’s fi- nancial mechanism. NAPAs identify, communicate and respond to the most urgent adaptation needs. They thus aim to develop short- and mid-term adap- tation strategies consisting of a series of tangible projects.This paper examines how the rights of the agricultural workforce are taken into account in the NAPAs of three climate-vulnerable SIDS located in the Asia-Pacific region. The States selected are Kiribati, the Maldives and Vanuatu. The paper seeks to establish how the NAPAs take rights of partici- pation into account, as well as the extent to which the documents consider agricultural livelihoods and their protection, and alternative livelihoods in the face of climate change. The focus is on agriculture, as the impact of cli- mate change on this sector is potentially devastating, as well as on the workers and families who depend on it. The paper concludes with recommendations on enhancing the quality of the NAPA process and on the role trade unions can play in advocating a rights-based approach to climate change policies.
Climate change and rights
Although climate change is already understood to be both an environmental and a development problem, and increasingly also an economic one, its social and human rights dimension has been given very little attention so far (Aminzadeh, 2007). Yet climate change can – and should – be regarded as a human rights issue. It is already undermining the application of a broad range of internation- ally protected human rights: the right to health (and even the right to life); the
Workers’ rights in climate change adaptation programmes in SIDS rights to food, water, shelter and property; rights associated with livelihood
and culture, with migration and resettlement, and with personal security in the event of conflict (ICHRP, 2008). Climate change is seen as one of the biggest threats to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015 (Klein and Persson, 2008; Oxfam, 2007), objectives that are consid- ered to be the minimum set of development standards, or, to put it bluntly, the starting point of equitable development for communities whose rights are poorly protected. Development and human rights should be two reinforcing policy goals, and indeed both can only exist together. Decent living standards, food, shelter, livelihoods and security are universally regarded as the precon- ditions of sustainable human development (Sperling, 2003). A continued and sustainable development process logically protects and enhances human rights. Although adaptation to climate change is considered to be an important part of the development cycle continuum (Klein and Persson, 2008), stand-alone adaptation initiatives still dominate adaptation action on the ground (McGray, Hammill and Bradley, 2007). Regardless of the types of adaptation action (in- tegrated or isolated), human rights should be key in their design and implemen- tation, so as to avoid socially unacceptable “mal-adaptation” (Doussa, 2008).
Table 1. Relation between human rights and climate change
Human rights norms in international law Impacts of climate change on human rights and development The right to life and security
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 3)
More deaths, disease and injury are projected, due to an increasing number of natural disasters. Up to 20 per cent of the world’s population live in low-lying areas that are likely to be affected by increased flood hazard by the 2080s. The right to food
“The States Parties to the present Covenant, recognizing the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger…” (International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 11)
Natural disasters are affecting food security, leading to increased malnutrition and famine. Reduction of crop yields will put 50 million people at risk of hunger by 2020 and an additional 132 million by 2050.
The right to subsistence
“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing…” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25)
“In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.” (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 1.2 and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 1.2)
Around 3 billion people will suffer from severe water stress by 2020, which will further cause malnutrition and diseases. It is estimated that by 2050, 15–20 per cent of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if average global temperatures rise more than 1.5–2.5°C. This includes impacts on the supply of animal proteins for 1 billion people.
The right to health
“The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.” (International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 12)
Over 150,000 people are currently estimated to die each year from diarrhoea, malaria and malnutrition caused by climate change. Child malnutrition will increase, damaging growth and development prospects for millions of children. Children and pregnant women are particularly susceptible to vector and water-borne diseases. Water stress and warmer conditions will encourage diseases.
International Journal of Labour Research 2010 Vol. 2 Issue 2
Table 1 lists some of the links between climate change, human rights and development, based on international human rights norms.
Climate change has the potential to exacerbate existing threats to human rights, as is suggested in table 1.Climate change effects on the development processes deny the essential rights of human beings as endorsed by different internationally agreed conventions, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The rights of marginalized groups such as subsistence farmers, disabled people, women and children are especially at risk.
We call for a human rights approach to climate change policy, together with international organizations (Oxfam, 2008) and scholars such as Dazé, Ambrose and Ehrhart (2009). A human rights approach provides a con- ceptual framework for analysing and improving climate change policies at various decision-making levels. The International Labour Organization has 188 Conventions on respect for human rights at work. All the signatory coun- tries are supposed to respect those enshrined rights. In this paper, we assess how much account is taken of one particular type of rights in climate change policy processes (the NAPAs). These are the rights of agricultural workers. Our approach is based on the premise that policy is only truly responsive to societal problems when effective consultation with vulnerable stakeholders has taken place, and when their rights have been taken into account. The NAPA process puts special emphasis on consultation and participation in the deci- sion-making process. We go on to describe how this was done in the SIDS under consideration in this paper. The focus is on the “rights to participation”, the “rights to (alternative) livelihoods” and the “rights to association”. Some ILO Conventions, such as the Right of Association (Agriculture) Convention, 1921 (No. 11), the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135), the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), are useful benchmarks when assessing agricultural workers’ rights. Regardless of whether a country has or has not ratified all the abovementioned Conventions, the question arises as to whether its adaptation policy/programme responds to the dangerous impacts of climate change on its most critical agricultural resources. Unless consideration of the rights of the vulnerable communities is ensured, climate change policy may take the form of “mal-development” as described by Doussa (2008) and Klein and Persson (2008), which may then even intensify climate vulnerabilities.
Small Island Developing States and climate change
The group of Small Island Developing States (SIDS) is composed of 51 States and territories that are highly vulnerable to climate change and are
Workers’ rights in climate change adaptation programmes in SIDS already feeling its effects (UNFCCC, 2008). The projected impacts of cli-
mate change cut across all economic sectors. Moreover, the vulnerability and the low adaptive capacity of SIDS is inextricably linked to the socio-cultural and economic context of these island States (ibid.). The Fourth Assessment Report (FAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) explores the key sectoral vulnerabilities and impacts. The report has firmly identified several impacts of climate change with “very high” and “high” con- fidence.1 It states that:
SIDS have special characteristics which make them especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change, sea level rise and extreme events (very high confidence).
Sea level rise is likely to exacerbate inundation, storm surge, erosion and other coastal hazards, thus threatening the vital infrastructure that sup- ports the socio-economic well-being of island communities (very high confidence).
There is strong evidence that under most climate change scenarios, water resources in small islands are likely to be seriously compromised (very high confidence).
Climate change is likely to heavily impact coral reefs, fisheries and other marine-based resources (high confidence).
On some islands, especially those at higher latitudes, warming has already led to the replacement of some local species (high confidence).
It is very likely that subsistence and commercial agriculture on small is- lands will be adversely affected by climate change (high confidence). (IPCC, 2007)
Different studies also confirm the major sectoral vulnerabilities of SIDS. Water, agriculture and food security, health, terrestrial ecosystems and coastal zones are identified as the most vulnerable sectors (IPCC, 2007; UNFCCC, 2005 and 2008). It is very likely that agricultural production will face severe impacts such as short-term crop failure and long-term production decline (IFPRI, 2009; Stern, 2006). UNFCCC (2008) again reports that the agricultural and food security impacts will be further aggravated by other cli- mate change impacts. Agricultural land and thus food security are affected by sea level rise, inundation, increased soil salinity, seawater intrusion into fresh- water lenses,2 and decline in fresh water supply. Furthermore, the fisheries sector will face the consequences of sea surface warming, sea level rising and
1. Confidence expresses the likelihood of occurrence. For very high confidence it is at least nine out of ten chances and for high confidence it is at least eight out of ten chances (for more information: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2.html) 2. Freshwater lens: the layer of fresh water floating above saline water beneath an island – Ed.
International Journal of Labour Research 2010 Vol. 2 Issue 2
tropical cyclones. According to IFPRI (2009) and FAO (2004), thin markets, a lack of diversification in production, a high degree of economic openness, a rapidly growing population, susceptibility to natural disasters, a lack of econ- omies of scale, remoteness, high transportation and communication costs and costly public administration further increase the SIDS’ vulnerability to agricultural and food insecurity. In this context, it is clear that human rights issues and climate change issues do overlap, both in the analysis and in the required policy responses. Indeed, as the SIDS’ economies are mostly based on subsistence agriculture and on fisheries (FAO, 2004), the workforce de- pendent on those sectors will be severely hit by the repercussions of climate change.
However, despite the high level of physical climate vulnerabilities, lim- ited information is available on the social and economic dimension of climate change for SIDS. The IPCC assessment reports (UNFCCC, 2008), technical reports, the Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change (Stern, 2006) and other influential publications spell out the physical vulnerabilities of SIDS, but essential social and economic aspects, such as the number of people affected, effects on employment, and the loss of agricultural production and livelihoods, are insufficiently documented at this point, making it difficult for decision-makers to translate the physical predictions into concrete policy responses. Combined with the lack of easily available statistics, all this means that drawing up a comprehensive vulnerability analysis of climate change im- pacts on SIDS is a real challenge.
An introduction to National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs)
The emergence of the NAPA
Even if no country is immune from the impacts of climate change, the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) will and do suffer most because of their low level of adaptive capacity. This realization requires an urgent re- sponse. Recognizing this, the UNFCCC has been providing support to LDCs to adapt to the impact of changing climatic conditions. The National Adaptation Programme of Action is meant to be the configuration process for identifying immediate adaptation needs and actions. According to the UNFCCC, the NAPA is to provide a process for LDCs to identify priority activities that respond to urgent and immediate needs with regard to adapta- tion to climate change – those needs for which further delay would increase vulnerability and/or costs at a later stage (UNFCCC, 2009b). The origins of the NAPA can be traced back to the Seventh Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC, which was held in Marrakesh, Morocco in 2001. The Marrakesh Accords that emerged from this process included three funds relevant to
Workers’ rights in climate change adaptation programmes in SIDS adaptation. The Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) is one of them. It
has been set up to support the world’s poorest and most vulnerable nations in adapting to climate change impacts (Abdullah et al., 2009). The chronolog- ical evolution of the NAPA is set out below (UNFCCC, 2009a):
Article 4.9 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) recognizes the specific needs and special situations of the LDCs.
Decision 5/CP.7 of the Seventh Conference of the Parties (COP) also ac- knowledged the specific situations of LDCs, in that they do not have the means to deal with problems associated with adaptation to climate change, and established an LDC work programme including NAPAs as well as other supporting activities.
Decision 28/CP.7 set the guidelines for NAPAs.
Decision 29/CP.7 set up an LDC Expert Group (LEG) to provide guidance and advice on the preparation and implementation strategy for NAPAs. The UNFCCC puts the emphasis on using existing information for pre- paring NAPAs, which are to be action-oriented, country-driven, flexible and based on national circumstances (UNFCCC, 2009c).
The NAPA process
The preparation of a NAPA is a systematic process. The UNFCCC has de- signed stepwise guidance to ensure the NAPAs are democratic, inclusive, participatory, action-oriented, country-driven and, of course, responsive to climate change adaptation. The flowchart in figure 1 outlines the main steps in the development of a NAPA, as given in the Least Developed Countries Expert Group (LEG) guidelines.
The following steps are to be followed in the NAPA preparation process:
Establishment of the NAPA team and multidisciplinary teams: The compo- sition of the team must balance inclusiveness with efficiency, and include the most relevant key players in order to capture the country’s immediate and pressing climate change issues. The teams should be cohesive and en- during through the NAPA preparation and implementation process in order to ensure institutional memory and continuity, notwithstanding the common problem of high staff turnover in government agencies of LDCs.
Synthesis of available information: The second step guides the collection of available information on adverse effects of climate change and coping strat- egies, taking into consideration national development plans, strategies and programmes.
International Journal of Labour Research 2010 Vol. 2 Issue 2
Rapid participatory vulnerability assessment: This stage involves an inte- grated assessment of current vulnerability risks. It focuses on identifying climate-related vulnerable livelihoods. Regional workshops with different stakeholders provide a detailed insight into climate vulnerability, and this is one of the imperatives at this stage.
Consult stakeholders and the public: LDCs have become increasingly expe- rienced with processes that integrate the views of all interested parties or stakeholders, as well as the general public, into project decision-making. The diversity of stakeholders, including government ministries, academic and research institutions, NGOs, civil society organizations, commu- nity-based organizations, political and traditional leaders, and the private sector, must be respected in the NAPA process.
Identify potential NAPA activities: Identification of relevant adaptation op- tions, including capacity-building, policy reform, integration into sectoral policies and project-level activities.
Prioritize criteria and screen activities: Current NAPA guidelines al- ready provide some guiding principles for selection criteria, including the degree of poverty reduction, the extent of adverse effects of climatic
Build NAPA team and multidisciplinary team Synthesize available impact assessments, coping strategies, past consultations, trends
and existing development framework Participatory rapid assessment of current vulnerability
and potential increase in climate hazards and associated risks Conduct public consultation aiming at identifying potential ideas for activities
Rank projects/activities and demonstrate integration into national policy frameworks and programmes Articulate potential NAPA
activities based on ideas from consultation
Periodic review of risks and prioritization
of activities Existing assessments
adequate for NAPA development
Develop project profiles and submit NAPA
Source: Reproduced from UNFCCC (2009c).
Figure 1. Flowchart of the NAPA process
Undertake criteria prioritization process (ranking the criteria)
Workers’ rights in climate change adaptation programmes in SIDS changes, cost-effectiveness and synergies with Multilateral Environment
Agreements (MEAs).
Rank activities: With the list of adaptation options prepared and criteria selected and weighted, there are several tools that can be used to prioritize and screen the NAPA activities. Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) and Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) are two of the most common tools used for this purpose.
Development of NAPA project profiles and submission of NAPA: This is the final stage of NAPA preparation. After completion of the project profiles,