climate

• EUROPE: ‘Governments are adopting measures that are beneficial for the climate but forget to include people’

  

  CIVICUS speaks with Karin Van Boxtel, Co Interim Director of Both ENDS, about the farmers’ protests happening across Europe.

  Both ENDS is a civil society organisation (CSO) based in the Netherlands that works jointly with environmental groups in African, Asian and Latin American countries towards a sustainable, fair and inclusive world. It seeks to strengthen civil society globally so it can gain critical influence over decisions and activities that affect people’s rights and the environment.

  Why are farmers protesting in several European countries?

  First of all, it is essential to recognise the diversity within the farmers’ community, because they are not a homogeneous group. Some are frontrunners and champions of sustainability and others aspire to be but face systemic obstacles, including lack of access to funding and land, challenges posed by the trade system and competition from imports. And then there’s a smaller group of farmers who simply resist change, but their influence is huge. We should focus on supporting the first two groups – helping frontrunners maintain their status and facilitating the transition for those aspiring to be frontrunners.

  The reality for these farmers across Europe is similar to farmers globally: current policies do not adequately support them. Both ENDS works with pioneering civil society and farmer organisations that connect with other farmers to join their efforts on, for instance, agroecology and food forests. Policy efforts globally have historically centred on the third group of farmers, instead of the first two. This started to shift in recent years, but caused discontent and insecurity among farmers most resistant to change, as well as among companies invested in the current system.

  The existing system fails to reward the right behaviours and doesn’t offer any long-term security through a combination of misdirected finances and improper trade rules. In the EU these trade rules lead to competition from cheap imports coming from countries with lower production and labour standards. In African, Asian and Latin American countries, environmental damage is done with the production of fodder inputs or food for export to the EU. One example is the production of soy, which leads to deforestation and land rights violations in Brazil. This system has led to a rise in production costs in the EU while prices have remained stagnant or fallen, and environmental impacts elsewhere are not integrated in the prices.

  Farmers’ protests are therefore revealing a systemic problem. Farmers are battling a system that doesn’t provide the right incentives and doesn’t reward those who are pioneers in sustainability. They also feel they aren’t receiving the recognition they deserve.

  How are climate policies impacting on farmers?

  Farmers are being negatively affected because governments are adopting measures that are beneficial for the climate but forget to include people. A climate transition is not enough – what’s needed is a just climate transition. This means a just energy transition and, equally importantly, a just food transition.

  Achieving a just food transition requires an analysis of the food system on a global scale, because this is a system that operates globally. Take for instance the implementation of deforestation regulations, a key measure to combat climate change. In principle this is a commendable measure – however, it poses challenges for many farmers, particularly small-scale farmers in countries in Asia or Latin America. In these regions, only larger farmers can meet the requirements of deforestation laws, which reveals that this measure, while part of much-needed climate action, lacks justice.

  This is the core of the issue. When formulating trade policy or negotiating trade agreements, states tend to overlook the perspectives of the farmers who are not necessarily at the forefront of sustainable practices but aspire to be. This applies not only to the Netherlands and other European countries but also to Brazil or Indonesia, among many countries in the global south.

  When designing climate measures, it is crucial to listen to and consider the needs of frontrunner and aspiring frontrunner farmers. This is different from prioritising the interests of agricultural giants, such as companies producing animal feed or those engaged in trading agricultural products.

  How is the far right politicising these tensions, and with what results?

  The far right is exploiting farmers’ perceptions of current climate measures as unjust. It is capitalising on the gaps in solutions identified by civil society, transition thinkers and frontrunner farmers all over the world.

  We realise many climate measures are having unfair effects. The challenge lies in ensuring that money financing the climate transition reaches farmers, particularly frontrunners, rather than the same companies that have so greatly contributed to the problems those measures are trying to address.

  A key element of the far right’s appeal is that they offer false hope to those who are reluctant to transition and reject any change. They offer simplistic solutions that don’t address the issue at its root, and are therefore not real solutions.

  What’s civil society’s position?

  Regarding the protests, civil society’s standpoint has been that peaceful protests should be allowed. The context is of growing criminalisation, particularly in countries where the far right is in the government. This is not unique to Europe but is a global concern. In some countries governments tend to tolerate agricultural protests more due to the economic significance of agriculture and its impact on food security, but overall, civic freedoms are increasingly under threat, with protesters –particularly climate protesters – facing detention or restrictions.

  As for the substance of the issue, civil society believes that a real solution requires a power shift, a systemic change in the trade and financial systems. This idea unites farmers’ organisations currently protesting in Europe and worldwide. Notably, despite apparent differences in viewpoints, in the Netherlands Extinction Rebellion supported farmers’ protests. This is because they also recognise the need for a structural power shift.

  It's worth noting the ongoing collaboration between CSOs and partner organisations, both locally and globally. Last year in the Netherlands, civil society joined forces with CSOs globally, Dutch farmer organisations, academics and private sector to address the Dutch agricultural agreement under negotiation. It raised concerns about its impact on farmers and communities in the global south and called for an agreement that both benefits Dutch farmers and considers the perspectives of farmers globally. The manifesto highlighted the need to change the trade system, fostering the regionalisation of food systems, prioritising farmers over companies and ensuring funds reach frontrunners. This collaborative effort is a strategy to bring about systemic change.

  ---

  Civic space in the Netherlands is rated ‘open’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Both ENDS through itswebsite or Facebook page, and follow it onTwitter andInstagram.

• ITALY: ‘The constitution now contemplates the interests of future generations’

  CIVICUS speaks with Edoardo Zanchini, National Vice President of Legambiente Onlus, about the recent legislative vote that introduced environmental protections in the Italian Constitution, and civil society’s role in making it happen.

  Established in 1980, Legambiente Onlus is an Italian civil society organisation (CSO) that works towards a clean and liveable environment by monitoring environmental issues, diagnosing problems and offering solutions, denouncing environmental crimes and seeking to hold those responsible to account, running sensitisation campaigns and educational projects, and advocating with policy makers.

  

  What is the significance of the recent constitutional amendment that mandates the state to safeguard ecosystems and biodiversity?

  It’s very important because it elevates the protection of the environment, biodiversity and ecosystems to the constitutional level. Before this amendment, the Italian Constitution did not explicitly recognise environmental protection as a fundamental value. The new text of Article 9 establishes the principle of environmental protection ‘in the interest of future generations’, a reference to the concept of sustainable development, according to which natural resources cannot be exploited in an unlimited way – that is, without taking into account that they are finite and how this will affect those who will come after us.

  A change to Article 41 also establishes that economic initiatives cannot be carried out in a way that could create damage to health or the environment. Before, the only constitutionally recognised restrictions were those related to security, freedom and human dignity.

  Wording was also introduced regarding the ‘protection of animals’, and this was the only point around which there were strong disagreements: pressure from hunters’ associations was strong and led to a compromise.

  Do you view the amendments as a civil society victory?

  Yes, it was a victory for the CSOs that have long been committed to the defence of ecosystems, the landscape and biodiversity. These amendments would not have been introduced if it hadn’t been for the growing awareness of the importance of these values and the increasing interest in their defence. And that awareness is the result of sustained civil society work.

  It has been a long road to reach today’s great consensus on environmental issues. And consultations with environmental CSOs in the amendment process were a key factor in that they helped put pressure on political parties to make the right decision.

  The fact that nobody openly campaigned against the amendment proposal is very telling: it shows there is a broad consensus, stronger than any political divide, around values that are recognised as being in the general interest, even as part of the identity of local communities and Italy as a whole. Aside from the strong conflict around the protection of animals, it got to the point that those who have an interest in pollution continuing to be allowed or overlooked were very careful not to take part in any controversy.

  Do you see the constitutional change in Italy as part of a European trend?

  In recent years several European countries have amended their constitutions to explicitly include and strengthen environmental protection. In all countries there is a strong consensus around this perspective, with an increasing public demand for information on environmental issues and increasingly active citizens who take it upon themselves to get informed, visit protected areas and valuable landscapes, and organise to demand their preservation for future generations. Environmental associations from all over Europe have been working together for many years on issues such as natural resource protection, the push towards a circular economy and the battle against climate change. 

  We also frame our initiatives and campaigns in the context of our membership of regional and global networks such as the Climate Action Network, which includes over 1,500 CSOs in more than 130 countries in every global region, the European Environmental Bureau, which is the largest network of environmental CSOs in Europe, with over 170 members in more than 35 countries, and Transport & Environment, Europe’s leading clean transport campaign group.

  What needs to happen next, both in terms of implementation and further policy development?

  Now it will be necessary to update the regulatory framework to include protection measures that had so far not been considered. The new constitutional reference to environmental protection will also allow environmentalists to appeal against laws that are in contradiction with it. Of course, Italy will have to review all its regulations related to environmental impact assessments, which were established without taking into account the protection objectives that are now part of our constitution.

  Civic space in Italy is rated ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with Legambiente Onlus through itswebsite or itsFacebook andInstagram pages, and follow@Legambiente on Twitter. 

• OLYMPICS: ‘This was supposed to be a unifying event, but the reality is always more complicated’

  CIVICUS discusses the political, economic, social and human rights implications of the recent Olympic Games with UK-based academic, journalist and author David Goldblatt, whose latest book isThe Games: A Global History of the Olympics.

  The Olympics have long been a global celebration of sport and unity, but recent editions have sparked intense debate about their impact on human rights. While the Paris 2024 Games sought to highlight gender inclusivity, environmental initiatives and urban development, they also generated significant controversies. The exclusion of Russia and Belarus but not Israel and the displacement of people from excluded groups raised questions about consistency, fairness and respect for human rights. As the focus shifts to Los Angeles 2028, concerns remain about the lasting effects of the extensive security measures put in place for the Games.

  What are the Olympics for, and why are they important?

  The purpose of the Olympic Games has evolved over time. In the original model conceived by Pierre de Coubertin in the late 19th century, they were a neo-Hellenic celebration of Victorian athletic amateurism and a space for personal diplomacy among the elite. More than 120 years on, both sport and society have changed, and so has the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) vision of the Games. Today, they are a cosmopolitan celebration of humanity through sport.

  Since abandoning amateurism in 1992, the IOC has linked the Games to several international issues, including support for universal human rights, international peace-making through the idea of an Olympic Truce, environmental sustainability with a focus on carbon neutrality and progressive urban development. Whether it succeeds in all these areas is another matter.

  The Olympic Games have also made significant progress in terms of gender inclusiveness, as they are no longer a male-only event. In recent years, there have been particular efforts to include more women as competitors and in television coverage, with Paris 2024 the first gender-equal Olympics. However, the issue of how transgender athletes should be treated remains unresolved, with highly controversial cases such as the Algerian boxer whose gender was questioned. This is a global sports problem, not just an IOC problem, and there isn’t a clear way out.

  The Games are supposed to be a unifying event, but the reality is always more complicated. The fact that Belarus and Russia were banned from taking part while Israel was accepted caused a great deal of controversy. It also seemed the focus of the event wasn’t on the athletes. Apart from global stars like Simone Biles and Léon Marchand, much of the attention was given to rapper Snoop Dogg, which is questionable for a multi-billion-dollar sporting event. The Games seem to be moving away from de Coubertin’s original vision and turning into a commercial television spectacle.

  What were the 2024 Olympics criticised for?

  The exclusion of Belarus and Russia raised questions of consistency, particularly in the light of Israel’s participation. While Israel argues it hasn’t violated international law and should therefore be treated differently to Russia, most of the world – and particularly the global south – disagrees. The IOC needs to rethink its criteria for participation, as there will always be ongoing conflicts and there should be clear rules about who can and can’t participate.

  Despite these problems, France handled protests reasonably well. Compared to the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, where pro-Iranian, pro-migrant worker and pro-LGBTQI+ protesters were severely repressed, pro-Palestinian protesters were allowed to make a statement with their T-shirts and flags. And it was definitely better than the 2008 Olympics in China, where there was no room for any kind of protest, even as the human rights situation was getting worse.

  Paris 2024 also showcased a diverse, multicultural and multiracial France, both through its athletes and in the opening ceremony. This display of diversity drew criticism from conservative groups and the French far right. But one thing is clear: once the Games began, attention shifted away from these issues, making it difficult for them to gain media visibility.

  What is your overall assessment of the event?

  It’s a complex assessment. One of the biggest problems with the Olympics is that they tend to cost much more than is budgeted for. But Paris 2024 managed to keep the budget under control. France aimed for a more modest Olympics, with a budget of around US$9 billion, making it one of the cheapest editions compared to London, Rio and Tokyo. Half of the money came from public funds and the rest from IOC sponsorship and ticket sales.

  Another positive aspect of Paris 2024 was that, unlike many other Olympic Games, it was explicitly linked to an existing urban development project. The only other notable case was Barcelona 1992, which was integrated into a wider urban plan. While the Paris model was not as comprehensive as Barcelona’s, it definitely stood out. Development plans focused on Saint Denis, France’s poorest region, with new public transport links and social housing in the Olympic Village expected to benefit the area.

  However, the extent to which these developments will contribute to a greener, more equitable Paris is still under debate. Houses in the Olympic Village are likely to be sold at prices local people can’t afford, and it’s not clear that the new jobs will benefit the people of Saint Denis. It’s likely to end up with a process of gentrification similar to what happened in Vancouver and London, where most of the housing is now owned by the Qatar Investment Authority and sold at prices locals can’t afford.

  What was the environmental cost of these Olympics?

  Paris made considerable efforts to reduce its carbon footprint. Although we don’t have the final data yet, it’s likely to be a significant improvement on previous editions – with the sole exception of Tokyo, where the COVID-19 pandemic prevented many people travelling. The Paris venues were powered by renewable energy, high environmental standards were applied to the construction of the Olympic Village and car use in the city was severely restricted during the event.

  However, air travel is still a problem. Hosting an international event such as the Olympics involves people travelling from all over the world and results in a very large carbon footprint, estimated at 1.5 million tonnes or more. Attempts have been made in the past to offset this by planting forests or investing in renewable energy, but the carbon credit market has proved ineffective. We must ask whether it’s justifiable to burn as much carbon as a Caribbean island consumes in a year just to host a global sporting event and transport dressage horses. Yet this is an issue no one in the global sports industry or any other major international event is willing to address.

  Were there any major human rights concerns?

  There are at least two major areas of concern. One is the large number of unhoused or poorly housed people evicted from the city in the run-up to the Games. At least 12,500 migrant workers and residents of temporary camps were moved to other parts of France, far from their communities and jobs. This number is likely to have increased in recent months and the situation remains a tragedy.

  Clearing the streets to create the illusion that there isn’t a housing problem before staging a global event is simply wrong. But this wasn’t the first time – there have been similar evictions in Tokyo and even more in Rio. With Los Angeles 2028 on the horizon, we can expect an even higher number of evictions given the city’s large unhoused population.

  Civil society organisations advocating for the unhoused made their voices heard in the run-up to the Games, with much media coverage. But once the spectacle began, they struggled to make headlines and advocacy was quickly overshadowed by the sport.

  Another human rights issue concerns the extensive security measures for the Paris Olympics, which involved a complex process of zoning Paris, with strict policing and rules about who could enter certain areas near the venues. If you lived in one of these areas, you needed a QR code. It was a very complicated and intrusive system, but for all the grumbling, it worked reasonably well. More worrying was the use of artificial intelligence, CCTV cameras and facial recognition technology to control crowds, raising questions about privacy and the long-term use of these measures.

  The French government and police promised to dismantle all these special security measures after the Games, but there is reason for scepticism. Similar measures were introduced for previous Olympics, such as Athens 2004 and London 2012, and remain in place today. And the enormous amount of money spent on Rio’s various police and paramilitary forces for riot control ahead of the 2016 games wasn’t returned either.

  What are your expectations for the next Olympics?

  We’re going to have another four years of global warming, so Los Angeles 2028 is going to be very hot. Extreme heat could have a significant impact on events and spectators, as seen at Tokyo 2020, where a marathon had to be cancelled due to the weather.

  The high number of unhoused people in Los Angeles is another major concern. While Mayor Karen Bass has plans to address the ‘issue’, the situation is likely to worsen in the run-up to the Games, with multiple evictions, as we’ve seen in Paris.

  On the positive side, Los Angeles 2028 has promised to be a car-free Olympics. It’s difficult to see how this could be achieved in a country with such a strong car culture. But Los Angeles has public transport and a light rail network, so it’s a question of getting locals out of their cars and onto trains and buses. Whether this ambitious goal can be achieved remains to be seen, but it could be an opportunity for a lasting change in habits and more sustainable urban development.

  ---

  Civic space in France is rated ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Follow@davidsgoldblatt on Twitter.

• SOUTH AFRICA: ‘We were denied the right to give or refuse our consent, so we took Shell to court – and won’ 

  CIVICUS speaks about civil society’s recent court victory against Shell in South Africa with Sinegugu Zukulu, programme manager of Sustaining the Wild Coast (SWC). SWC is a South African civil society organisation that works with coastal communities of Eastern Mpondoland, South Africa, to protect their land, livelihoods and culture. 

  What inspired you to become an environmental activist? 

  My personal story made me become an environmental activist. I grew up on communal land, where people shared everything and people could depend on each other. People in my community had little education. I was one of the few lucky ones who were able to attend university. However, people were good at sharing. They practised ubuntu, a concept that refers to our shared humanity and the way we see our humanity reflected in each other. Among us everything is shared, from the water we drink to the land where we grow our crops. 

   The fact that I grew up in a community where we all took care of each other and shared everything made me who I am. As I got an education while most didn’t, I found I could use it to give back to my community. Because people in communities like mine were so poorly educated, governments could do whatever they wanted. So I decided to step up for my people and help them understand their rights and protect themselves. 

  It was only natural for me to focus on environmental rights, as I got my degree in environmental studies. When the government started a project to build a highway cutting through my community, I brought a case to the High Court. Unfortunately, this was not successful and we are now renegotiating to have the road rerouted. 

   Why is it important to protect South Africa’s Wild Coast? 

  All our coastal communities rely on the Wild Coast for their livelihoods. For most coastal communities, the Wild Coast is also their source of income: they sustainably profit from the environment, for instance by catching fish and selling it in villages and to tourists. The tourism industry employs many people, so this is another way in which people depend on the coastline. 

  Additionally, the Wild Coast holds spiritual meaning. People training to become traditional healers go to the coast to get in contact with their ancestors. We believe the ocean is our final resting place, so our ancestors lay there. Saltwater is used in most healing practices. 

  Due to the number and diversity of its marine species, the Wild Coast is also a marine protected area. The extraction of fossil fuel has the potential to destroy it, on top of contributing to climate change when it’s burned. So we should also protect the Wild Coast from extraction for the sake of the Earth. 

  What challenges did you face when campaigning against Shell? 

  Just like any other government, South Africa’s wants to attract investment, particularly by multinational corporations such as Shell, with which it has a great relationship. That’s why our court case set us not just against Shell but also against our government. 

  A big challenge was the government’s delegitimising narrative. The Ministry of Mineral Resources and Energy labelled us as ‘anti-development’. The government refused to listen to us and to have an open dialogue about Shell’s potentially negative impact on coastal communities. 

  We wanted to have Shell’s exploration permit revoked because we saw it as a threat to our livelihood and to a safe environment. You just need to google what happened with Shell in Ogoniland in Nigeria and you will understand our concerns. We don’t want an oil spill on our coasts.  

  South Africa has good environmental legislation, but much of it is lacking in implementation, so that is what the environmental movement focuses on. The law is very clear; our constitution says we have the right to a safe and healthy environment. If someone wants to do something on our land, we should be consulted, and we weren’t. We were denied the right to give or refuse our consent, so we took Shell to court – and won. 

  South African civil society enjoys the freedoms needed to challenge the government in court. But financial resources were critical. We had no money to travel to communities and mobilise them, so we did all our mobilisation work through social media, where we provided information, published press releases and shared videos. We had to look for a law firm that was able and willing to take this matter to court, and that would agree to take the risk even if there were not enough financial resources. Fortunately, we were able to find several legal firms that were willing to come to our rescue. These are firms that prioritise human rights issues and support litigation by Indigenous communities, and fortunately the judges required Shell and our government to pay our litigation costs.  

  What does this victory mean for South Africa and the environmental movement? 

  This victory means a lot in terms of our right to self-determination as guaranteed by the United Nations, as it made it clear that free, prior and informed consent must always be sought. It also ratified our constitutional right to a safe and healthy environment. 

  It is a victory not just for us but also for future generations. We are working so that their right to a safe and healthy environment will also be protected.  

  We are now working on a documentary about our struggle, which we plan to launch at the upcoming conference of the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP27) in Egypt, although we lack the resources to travel there. We would love to inspire Indigenous communities elsewhere to also rise up and defend their territories. By doing so we will be ensuring life on this planet continues to be possible.  

  What kind of support do South African environmental activists need from the international community? 

  The most important thing we need right now are financial resources to continue doing our work. 

  We also need international partners and support. Shell is a British company, but the UK government has no problem with it going around the world searching for more fossil fuels, in the middle of a climate crisis. These first-world multinational companies are going to third-world countries to extract ever more profit at the cost of compromising our livelihoods and worsening climate change. As always, the real victims are the poorest people. 

  This has got to stop. Organisations from the countries where these companies come from should work with us and pressure them to stop. Corporations should move to safer energy sources; fossil fuels are not the answer anymore. 

  ---

   Civic space in South Africa is rated ‘obstructed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor. 

  Get in touch with Sustaining the Wild Coast through its website or Facebook page. 

• TUNISIA: ‘We are just students fighting for the future in times in which our opinions are disregarded’

  CIVICUS speaks about the impacts of the climate crisis in Tunisia and civil society responses with Aziza Fakher, a biology-geology engineering student and member of Youth for Climate Tunisia (YFC Tunisia).

  Founded by two students in July 2019, YFC Tunisia strives for social and climate justice in Tunisia. It acknowledges the impact of the climate crisis on vulnerable and marginalised communities and demands climate action through digital campaigns and on-the-ground mobilisation.

  What prompted the foundation of YFC Tunisia, and what issues do you currently work on?

  The movement was started during the 2019 heatwave, which hit the whole of Tunisia and was so bad that you couldn’t leave your home without first getting properly hydrated.

  Due to its diversity of ecosystems and landscapes, Tunisia faces multiple climate issues. Access to water is a human right, but here it is a very challenging issue. Receding coastlines put the lives of many Tunisians living on islands in peril. The coastline as a whole is endangered.

  We are also working with other civil society organisations (CSOs) to stop industrial pollution in the city of Gabès, which faces an environmental catastrophe. Industries there have destroyed natural ecosystems and Indigenous communities. This fits the definition of ecocide, and the rest of the country should acknowledge it.

  All of this has impacted on women in very specific ways. There are rural areas where women still have to carry barrels of water for as far as 10 kilometres. In places such Gabès, they live amid pollution, and for those of reproductive age this can have long-lasting impacts both on themselves and on future generations. 

  We advocate for the introduction of climate education in all school curriculums and for exposing women to it as well, so they can transmit it to their children. Although the government has signed an agreement indicating support, it has so far been passive. CSOs lack funds to get this work done and the state hasn’t intervened or reached out to help.

  Why is climate so important for young people in Tunisia?

  This is important to us because it’s our future that is at stake. Young people have been very serious and dedicated to tackling this crisis from day one: we have skipped school to fight for the climate, we have helped other CSOs, we have reached out to political figures who have shut us down and refused to meet with us and listen to us. We have played a role in influencing other young people and raising wider awareness, which has been an important goal of the movement since it was founded. Indeed, we are still recruiting more young activists every day and we are able to provide them with a platform and a space to express themselves and their thoughts about the ongoing crisis.

  People tend to forget that we are just students fighting for the future in times in which our opinions are disregarded. Many of us are endangering our daily lives, but we think it is worth it.

  How has thecurrent political crisis influenced your work?

  The political and economic situation has influenced our movement. If one of your main tactics is to reach out to decision-makers to advocate for the adoption and implementation of laws and policies, a constantly changing situation is a big problem. It does not let us get ahead in our work and regularly makes us lose ground on the progress previously made.

  When we first held a strike in Tunis, the Tunisian capital, we were exposed to religious conspiracy theories, which people tried to use against us because they refused to believe that climate change was real. Politicians and government officials should have conveyed the correct message to educate the public so that this crisis isn’t something alien and mysterious to them. But they didn’t.

  We received backlash and were targeted with criticism and hate speech concerning our methods. Others, however, have said that our discourse is too soft, that we do not take risks and that we are not active in real life. Our response to them is that we are young Tunisians living in a context of political unrest, so our real-life activities are always uncertain.

  The economic context for activism is also complicated, especially following the recent news about the president’s intention to ban all foreign funding for Tunisian CSOs.

  We have often found ourselves lagging in the funding department. The situation is very difficult for many CSOs that have no independent funding. If we are unable to get funding, we will be unable to work on new projects. We are very uncertain regarding our future plans. And being young activists, we also struggle to exercise our right to access data and information, which is a huge issue in Tunisia.

  Additionally, we have faced bureaucratic restrictions. For example, we have recently had to submit our registration paperwork because we are working on climate education and we are not allowed to work with children or in a school or university environment unless we are recognised and certified as a formal CSO. But we have faced challenges because the process is very slow and requires a huge amount of paperwork.

  What are your demands for national and international decision-makers ahead of the COP27 climate change summit?

  We are aware that activity in the global north has a huge environmental impact on the global south, including Tunisia. Since COP27 will be held in Egypt this year, we have formed a coalition with other environmental rights groups to work at a regional level.

  We want to see more engagement from local and global politicians in terms of laws and policies to tackle climate change, and also for them to condemn greedy capitalist profiteers. We would like the Tunisian government to acknowledge the Sustainable Development Goals in the Tunisian context and to implement nationally determined contributions and start a transition to renewable energy.

  New laws must also be introduced to protect future generations’ right to water and food security. The Ministry of Environment must adopt climate change mitigation and adaptation measures. Effective waste recovery and management systems must be adopted, because the lack of these is a huge problem for local communities. People have died as a result of living near toxic waste dumps. We also need state-run awareness campaigns targeted at marginalised and vulnerable communities. And we want climate education in all schools, because of its crucial role in preparing kids for the future to come.

  We are willing to work together with other CSOs that share our goals. Because these are human rights issues, we would like to bring them into the United Nations Human Rights Council and its Universal Periodic Review sessions, where civil society voices are heard, taken into consideration and empowered.

  Civic space in Tunisia is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with Youth for Climate Tunisia through itsFacebook andInstagram pages, and follow@yfctunisia on Twitter.

• UNITED NATIONS: ‘From now on, states should adopt a human rights approach to environmental regulation’

  

  CIVICUS speaks with Victoria Lichet, executive director of the Global Pact Coalition, about the resolution recently passed by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) recognising the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a human right.The Global Pact Coalition brings together civil society organisations (CSOs), activists, artists, lawyers and scientists advocating for the adoption of the Global Pact for the Environment, a draft international treaty to enshrine a new generation of fundamental rights and duties related to the protection of the environment, and particularly the right to a healthy environment.

  What are the relevance and implications of the recent UNGA resolution on the right to live in a clean, healthy and sustainable environment?

  The adoption of a resolutionon the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment by the UNGA, the legislative body of the UN, which includes all the UN member states, is a historic victory for environmental protection. The recognition of the right toa clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a universal human right makes environmental protection a core aspect of human rights protection. It is a major step towards a human rights-based approach in environmental litigation, as it integrates human rights norms into environmental matters.

  In addition to recognising the right to a healthy environment as a right for all people, the resolution’s preamble clearly affirms the linkage between a healthy environment and human rights. The UNGA recognises that ‘environmental damage has negative implications, both direct and indirect, for the effective enjoyment of all human rights’.

  While UNGA resolutions are not legally binding, this resolution is a strong political and symbolic message. It will play a role in shaping and strengthening new and stronger international environmental norms, laws, standards, and policies. As such, it will necessarily improve the overall effectiveness of environmental law and catalyse further environmental and climate action. This also proves that multilateralism still has a role to play in international environmental law.

  What role did civil society play in the process leading to this resolution?

  This resolution followed months of mobilisation by CSOs and Indigenous peoples’ organisations (IPOs), including the Global Pact Coalition. Under the inspiring leadership of the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment, David R Boyd, and his predecessor, John Knox,the coalition of CSOs and IPOs was able to reach out to governmentsthrough emails and letters to better inform them about the importance of the right to a healthy environment. It also led social media campaigns to inform the public about the process. 

  The core group of countries that led this initiative, made up of Costa Rica, Maldives, Morocco, Slovenia and Switzerland, was really helpful and communicated important steps regarding the resolution. We are very grateful for their leadership.

  Does the final text of the resolution fully reflect civil society contributions?

  The final text of the resolution mostly reflects civil society expectations. Through negotiation, some states were able to remove a few paragraphs. For example, the first draft said that the right to a healthy environment was related to the right to life and the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. But the final draft also included additional paragraphs, for example to include ‘business enterprises and other relevant stakeholders’ in the call to adopt policies to enhance international cooperation to scale up efforts to ensure a healthy environment.

  Overall, the main goal for civil society was to have the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment recognised as a human right for all, and this was obviously fully reflected in the final text. So it is in fact a historic victory for civil society.

  What measures should states adopt to make the right recognised in the resolution effective?

  Recognition should be combined with strong and ambitious national and regional public policies that implement mechanisms to strengthen environmental protections, the protection of people’s health and the enjoyment of their other human rights. From now on, states should adopt a human rights-based approach in environmental regulation as well as better renewable energy and circular economy policies.

  As Special Rapporteur David Boyd said, the international recognition of the right to a healthy environment should encourage governments to review and strengthen their environmental laws and policies and enhance their implementation and enforcement.

  What should civil society do next?

  Civil society should now advocate for stronger and more ambitious instruments to protect the environment, our right to a healthy environment and other environmental rights. Now that the right to a healthy environment has been recognised at the international level, we should introduce additional progressive rights and duties that will take us even further in environmental protection.

  The UNGA resolution could be the foundation for a more comprehensive international instrument on the right to a healthy environment and other environmental rights. We already have ambitious models that could be used in these future negotiations, including the Global Pact for the Environment and the draft covenant of the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the world’s largest global environmental network.

  The path from ‘soft law’ to ‘hard law’ – in this case, from the non-binding UNGA resolution to a convention on the right to a healthy environment – is a very common one in international law. For example, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is one part of the UNGA resolution on the International Bill of Human Rights, and therefore not legally binding, resulted in two treaties adopted in 1966: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It took 18 years to incorporate the Declaration into two legally binding texts.

  We hope it will not take 18 years to achieve a convention on environmental rights, because that would bring us to 2040. We do not have that kind of time. The time has come to adopt such a convention, a ‘third pact’ recognising a third generation of human rights. After civil and political rights, and economic and social rights, it is time to enshrine our environmental rights.

  As we face a triple planetary crisis, a binding international environmental text is critically important because millions of people are already dying from toxic environments, particularly from air pollution.

  ---

  Get in touch withthe Global Pact Coalition through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@VictoriaLichet and@PactEnvironment on Twitter.