ONE month on from the Paris Agreement, award winning author, barrister and international ecocide law advocate Polly Higgins from Stroud reflects on the outcomes of a deal that was hailed a ‘historic victory’ in the battle to save the planet from irreversible change.

 

 

In December world leaders from nearly 200 countries agreed to keep global warming below 2C and work towards a 1.5C limit.

The conference was hailed a ‘flame of hope’ and a landmark success in the world’s commitment to the protection of the environment.

The announcement was met with a standing ovation at the conference and scenes of jubilation followed from demonstrations in Paris and around the globe.

But as the euphoria subsided and a more sober lens was cast over the details of the deal, it quickly appeared not everyone shared in the unbounded optimism.

For some, the agreement was merely an exercise in empty, feel-good promise making.

“In terms of a legally binding deal, Paris was a complete failure,” says Polly Higgins.

“And for some vulnerable island states that are facing climate devastation, it was an utter catastrophe.

Higgins, from Stroud, is a Scottish-born barrister who has spent the last decade of her life advocating an international law against ‘ecocide’ - the extensive destruction, damage to or loss of ecosystems.

Having fought for years to have ecocide accepted as international law and been involved in the infamous Copenhagen Agreement, she knows better than most the challenges of affecting true change.

“Interestingly if you go back and actually look at the Paris Agreement, it reiterates almost precisely the same words of the Copenhagen Accord six years ago,” she says.

“And like last time it does not set any mechanism, methodology or criteria for assigning individual mitigation obligations to states.

“So the core substance of the text remains the same, yet Copenhagen was declared a disaster, and Paris a victory.

“For western states it was a step forward and a success, but only because for them nothing of any real consequence came out of it.

“But for low-lying pacific states and those vulnerable countries dealing with the effects of climate change right now, it was not what was included in the deal that mattered, but what was left out.

“Emergency provisions were not integrated; indigenous and human rights were redacted and there is no mention of what must be done to stop the loss of lives.

“Those people going underwater and seeing their ecosystems destroyed needed immediate change.

“Yet because we emerged from Paris with no binding deal to impose targets, we have no legal lever or mechanism to make this happen.

“Thankfully, this is where an ecocide law comes in.”

Stroud News and Journal:

In 2010 Higgins launched a campaign for the United Nations to accept ecocide as a fifth ‘crime against peace’, which could be tried at the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The ICC was set up in 2002 to hear cases for four crimes against peace: genocide, war crimes, crimes of aggression and crimes against humanity.

Ecocide, she argues, should join that list, meaning that governments and corporations that wilfully undergo dangerous industrial activity where entire landscapes are destroyed would face prosecution at the highest level.

This radical idea would have a huge effect on industries causing widespread damage to the environment like fossil fuels, mining, forestry and agriculture.

“Essentially it puts buffers on dangerous and reckless industrial activity. Fracking and oil drilling for example.

“The basic premis for companies would be: ‘If this going to cause significant harm to the environment, then we can’t go there’.

“In that way it overrides that one number one legal obligation that currently exists of putting the interests of the shareholder first, which is maximising profit.

“Instead it puts in an overriding legal duty of care to put the health and wellbeing of the people and the planet. In that way, it would succeed where Paris failed.”

Stroud News and Journal:

This fundamental shift in the ethics of the energy industry, she says, would catapult global society into a sustainable future.

“In one way then ecocide law is a disruptor, but on the other hand it an enabler,” she continues.

“It will break a cycle of damage and destruction that is escalating out of control and then drive a renewable revolution.

“Really it would re-invent the energy industry in a very big way and in very short space of time.

“Just like the move away from coal, ecocide will be the powerful lever the transition away from fossil fuels.

“The law therefore would give those first movers and pioneers in green energy an early market advantage, prioritising those that operate on a do-no-harm principle.

“It effectively acts a rudder which can change the direction and focus of the energy industry - navigating us through stormy waters towards calmer seas ahead.”

All this would be possible because unlike the Paris agreement it would be enshrined in law. Instead of voluntary international agreements and promises for action, ecocide would have ‘legal teeth’.

“The Paris conference cut the climate vulnerable states' life line. What we came out with left them with nothing to keep them afloat,” she continued.

“Those states are in need of immediate action and protection, and ecocide is one mechanism to do that. They are beginning to realise this. I think public opinion is shifting that way and the international legal community is beginning to come around too.

“So I think it is not a matter of if we see ecocide law in place, but when.

“Change is upon us because the desire for change is there this time around, and Paris was a good example of this.

“While on a legal basis they are worlds apart, the two issues are part of the same trend of opinion shifting towards a unified global climate movement.

“If Paris had any big success then it came in the ability of civil society to creatively and collaboratively give voice to the issues of climate change.

“It showed that even if the states and corporations of the world are not yet ready for fundamental change, a growing multitude is.

“We saw the voice of the conscience of humanity. They drew the red lines for Paris, they said enough is enough. And the world had no option but to listen.”

The agreement then, she concludes, was a legal failure, but a productive and important failure.

Though Paris’ ‘flame of hope’ was not as bright as first thought, its embers could still light the path ahead.

Find out more about the campaign against ecocide at www.pollyhiggins.com