диссертация (1169188), страница 90
Текст из файла (страница 90)
The Rio Conference has shown that theinternational community is shifting away from the paradigm “economic growth atany cost”, and that the ecological dimension is becoming an integral element ofdevelopment. However, its incorporation into political decision-making related toclimate change is a matter for the distant future. Ultimately, the paper concludes,while some steps are indeed being taken to integrate social interests into suchdecisions, they are not efficient.The scope of social issues, including the issues of human rights, eradicatingpoverty, etc., in solving climate change-related problems, is paramount.
Of special548IlulissatDeclaration(2008)Arctichttp://www.oceanlaw.org/downloads/Arctic/Ilulissat_Declaration.pdf.549OceanConference.http://www.who.int/globalchange/mediacentre/events/2011/social-dimensions-of-climate-change.pdfIlulissat.396importance in this context is the UN Declaration on the Rights of IndigenousPeoples,550 calling for states to respect the rights of their indigenous peoples,including to land and resources. In particular, Art. 23 provides for the right ofindigenous peoples to determine and develop priorities and strategies forexercising their right to development. In particular, indigenous peoples have theright to be involved actively in developing and determining health, housing andother economic and social programmes affecting them and, as far as possible, toadminister such programmes through their own institutions.Art. 32 sets forth the right of indigenous peoples to determine and developpriorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories andother resources.
The Declaration provides that states shall consult and cooperate ingood faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representativeinstitutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approvalof any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly inconnection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water orother resources. States shall also provide effective mechanisms for just and fairredress for any such activities, and appropriate measures shall be taken to mitigatean adverse environmental, economic, social, cultural or spiritual impact.Pursuant to Art. 21, States shall take effective measures and, whereappropriate, special measures to ensure continuing improvement of their economicand social conditions.
Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and specialneeds of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities.The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has recognized thatvulnerability and the potential impact of climate change are defined by how muchpeople and communities are sensitive to these changes and how people can adaptto them. In its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, the Panel noted the deficiencies ofits definition of vulnerability that lacked the notion of “social vulnerability”.550Adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 61/295 dated 13 September 2007.397Social vulnerability is a broad term that covers the possibility of causingharm (or losses) by such factors as:- human capital – health, skills and abilities, knowledge and education;- social capital – participation in decision-making, voting rights, varioussocial relations with kin, neighbours, public organisations, business communitiesand state authorities;- physical capital – housing and various kinds of shelter, agricultural tools,communal infrastructure;- natural resources, including land and water;- financial capital, including income, savings and loans.Nonetheless, despite the studies and opinions of scholars, the policy relatedto climate change is elaborated based on the traditional economic approach,heavily reliant on “end-of-pipe” methods – taxes, trade policy, technologicalmeasures, which do not adequately reflect social issues.
As already noted, thatmethod has shown its inadequacy. There is a need for a new policy that wouldintegrate the social dimension of climate change. The following is suggested tobridge that gap:- to recognize the value of informal, local and traditional knowledge and touse it in addition to scientific knowledge;- to promote cooperation at the national and international levels to supportinterdisciplinary social and scientific studies on climate change;- to ensure that scientific studies on climate change include issues of health,reduction of the risk of natural disasters, food and water safety, and to integrate thefindings made into the social and economic vulnerability analysis;- to promote incorporating the social dimension into national adaptationprogrammes.As a means to strengthen the social aspect of policy and programmes relatedto climate change, the said assessment report provides for several blocks ofmeasures and areas of focus.398The first block is “Participation”.
Active involvement, according to theauthors, gives all people a unique opportunity to influence policy-making andrealization. Various tools and procedures should be used at relevant levels – fromnation-wide to community level, for instance, as regards infrastructure, land use,construction of housing, etc. In all cases, the Report stresses, it is important toengage civic organisations, communes, trade unions at the earliest stage ofdecision-making. Where affected groups remain estranged from decision-makingand planning, this, as the Report authors justly emphasise, increases the risk of themeasures taken falling out of line with the people’s needs, or will end up beingirrelevant or too costly, eventually causing an increase in inequality andvulnerability.The second block is “Binding Force”.
States, according to the drafters of theReport, have certain legal obligations to resolve social issues due to climatechange. Such obligations follows from their participation in international treatieson human rights, labour standards, and their national constitutions and laws.The third block is “Non-discrimination”. It is suggested to pay specialattention to marginalized, discriminated and vulnerable groups in taking measuresfor the adaptation to climate change.
Such groups include women, children, thepopulation of urban fringes, other poor strata, nomadic communities, refugees,migrants and displaced persons, the elderly, indigenous peoples, incapacitatedpeople and others. The Report stresses the importance of involving thesepopulation groups, too, in decision-making.The fourth block is “Expansion of Rights and Possibilities.” All climatechange-related decisions, the Report emphasises, should be aimed at expanding therights and possibilities of the local population.The fifth block is “Transparency”. Measures taken in response to climatechange and adaptation policies should be developed subject to full information.This implies that planning should be open; the purposes and approaches should beunderstandable for all; all relevant documents should be available online; massmedia should be widely used; press-releases of ongoing meetings and discussions399should be published, along with reviews of the planning process; minutes ofmeetings should be public; the guidelines published should be clear.These considerations and proposals have a wide social scope and, as AngloAmerican legal literature claims, can be practically all applied to the Arctic.§ 3.
The Arctic model of sustainable development: doctrinal insights inAnglo-American studiesThe idea of sustainable development, ever since it emerged (it wasformulated, as we know, in the 1987 Report of the World Life Issues onEnvironment and Development “Our Common Future”), has received widerecognition and popularity. From the standpoint of the authors of that Report, theessence of sustainable development (although the translation of ‘sustainable’ doesnot seem quite perfect; the concept rather suggests continuous development,meaning development without serious pauses, let alone rolling back) is thatproviding for the current generation’s needs should not undermine theopportunities of future generations for providing for theirs.The concept emerged based on ideas voiced earlier.
In particular, these werereflected in the 1972 Stockholm Declaration’s Principle 2, which provides that thenatural resources of the earth, including the air, water, land, flora and fauna andespecially representative samples of natural ecosystems, must be safeguarded forthe benefit of present and future generations through careful planning ormanagement, as appropriate.551 To promote and implement this and other ideasencapsulated in the Declaration, the UN created the UN Environment Programme.In the abovementioned Report ‘Our Common Future’, the concept isformulated in a more specific way. The blurry slogan on satisfying vaguegeneration needs has begun to take a clearer shape.
Thus, the Report outlines thelimitations impeding constant development: the level of technology, theorganisation of society, the biosphere’s ability to assimilate the consequences of551A/CONF.48/Rev.1, Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, 5-16 June1972, United Nations, http://www.un-documents.net/aconf48-14r1.pdf400human activity. Development is interpreted exclusively as economic growth andpoverty is seen as the main concern. Constant development itself is construed notas some achievement of the state of harmony, but as a process of changes, in whichthe exploitation of resources, investment, technological improvement andinstitutional transformations are happening in accordance with existing and futureneeds.Throughout the twenty years that followed, according to John Drexhage andDeborah Murphy’s work on the evolution of the concept, sustainable developmentwas interpreted by governments, businesses and the public as the main leadingprinciple of society’s development.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
