Concurrent Crises as a Catalyst of Change: How the coronavirus pandemic can help build peace with the Planet –A dialogue with Josep Garí (UNDP)
By Laura Silva Aya
“There is no way to solve global problems if we are not a community of critical thinking, which then becomes a community of practice”. These words, spoken by Josep Garí, a senior policy advisor at the UNDP, encapsulate the content and tone of the event “Concurrent crisis as a catalyst of change: How the coronavirus pandemic can help build peace with the Planet”. Held in collaboration between the Graduate Institute’s Environmental Committee and the UNDP, participants were invited to hold a frank and inclusive dialogue with Mr. Garí, in order to discuss how the multiple crises facing the international community represent a moment both of reckoning and opportunity.
The discussion was organized in three separate sections: 1) before Covid-19 or where are we coming from; 2) during Covid -19 or where are we; and finally, 3) after Covid-19, or where are we aiming to go. Each section consisted of Mr. Garí highlighting the pressing environmental challenges the world is facing – as well as their policy responses – from the perspective of his professional expertise. This interaction was then followed by a Q&A session with the event’s participants, who asked engaging and thoughtful questions on diverse issues such as environmental destruction, the social risks and issues that come with transforming societies and economies in ways that make them more compatible with the planet, and the relationship between capitalism, consumerism, and climate change.
Though a wide range of topics were covered in the discussion, some themes stood out clearly. An important focus was the Paris Climate Agreement – recognizing both the opportunities and limitations of the landmark policy framework. At a time when countries and states have prioritized their interests instead of cooperation, when populism seems to be rising, and when humanity is facing climate change the Paris Climate Agreement is likely to be the treaty that will define the upcoming century. Not only does it not differentiate between the responsibilities of developed and underdeveloped countries, but the treaty has also created space for all actors to understand that action against climate change is a universal obligation. The Paris Agreement has the potential to reorient relationships in the international community towards partnership and dialogue, and away from punitive measures. Mr. Garí also emphasized the significance of carbon neutrality as an objective: not in order to avoid climate change (it’s already here) but as a way of mitigating climate unpredictability, and ultimately, providing some measure of safety and security to humanity.
This theme of responsible and constructive global governance was key in the session, especially when the discussion shifted towards Covid-19 and the future. Mr. Garí was adamant about the fact that the upcoming decade is critical, and any major restructuring in response to the global climate crisis also needs to consider both Covid-19 and the rising inequality across the globe that has sparked a social crisis. Action must be taken, and on three fronts; firstly, societies need a new social contract where people and relationships are valued more than profit. Secondly, the disrupted economies of today will have to be rebuilt as green economies in order to make them more inclusive and sustainable. Thirdly, the digital revolution has provided our global community with powerful tools to increase accountability, transparency, and dialogue, allowing all actors to engage with measuring commitment to the green economy and sustainability. In this way, the private sector has the opportunity to play a momentous role in the construction of new economies and societies which will bring about environmental good.
The event ended with a poignant message: information, communication, education, and trust can be tools of change rather than tools of indoctrination. Yet these tools need to be rebuilt in order for societies to progress. Mr. Garí stressed that the objectives of public discussion should not be to win – rather, we should debate in order to gain collective clarity on the best way to move forwards. Ultimately, the lack of trust and critical thinking is a colossal problem facing our global community, and they are at the heart of the changes we need to see in governance and public dialogue in order to deal with our concurrent crises.
Will Ecocide Become an International Crime?
By Samuel Pablo Pareira
In the current Anthropocene epoch, the activities of humans (Anthropos) are altering the Earth’s natural state in a way never seen before. We have seen climate change and environmental destruction on an unprecedented scale.
Amid these circumstances, some civil societies and environmental lawyers, most notably Polly Higgins, have lobbied the UN International Law Commission for years to amend the Rome Statute and include ecocide (ecological genocide) as one of those serious ‘international crimes against peace’, together with genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression.
As part of the Semaine de la durabilité Genève (Sustainability Week Geneva) 2021, IHEID Environmental Committee organized “ECOCIDE: Leveraging the Law to Prevent Environmental Destruction”, a panel session which included legal and environmental experts, as well as gender and human rights activists from the US, UK, South Sudan, and Nepal.
Damien Short from University of London kickstarted the session by explaining some updates surrounding the concept of ecocide. Currently, there are three options to include ecocide in the Rome Statute: as a stand-alone crime with a separate Article, for it to be included under crimes against humanity, or included under war crimes. Each of them will have different consequences in the international legal system and how it is applied.
He argued that incorporating ecocide in the Rome Statute will not necessarily solve the problem of climate change or decarbonization, but it is definitely useful, and will set a precedent in the current global effort to stop human activities that are further harming nature.
“It will be a token of gesture. It’s going to be a toolbox, not a panacea.”
Responding to my question on the issue of scale to determine when an environmentally destructive activity can be considered as an ecocide; Short predicted that it will mostly be treated on the same legal basis as genocide, in which it needs to have a long-term, severe significance. “My guess […] if you keep it at a very, very large scale, it will have more states support.”
It is worth noting that any amendments to the Rome Statute must be proposed by at least one of its state parties, then approved by two-thirds of the others. Some of the world’s top emitters: China, United States, India, and Russia, are not state parties to the Statute. Together, these four countries alone are responsible for 51.21% or over half of the global greenhouse gas emissions.
Regina Paulose, criminal lawyer and Executive Director of Common Good Foundation, pointed out the fact that current discussion on ecocide is very much state-based, and it becomes ineffective if we don’t incorporate perspectives from indigenous peoples, who often are the most-affected victims of environmental degradation.
Although she doubts the possibility of indigenous peoples having the same legal standing under the Rome Statute as states, she stressed the importance of having indigenous standpoints on ecocide, due to their belief of being “as one and the same with their environment”.
Nyachangkuoth Tai, human rights activist from South Sudan and Dhirendra Nalbo, co-founder of the Open Institute from Nepal examined case studies of ecocide in their regions.
Tai explained how oil pollution and chemical waste containers dumped in South Sudan have destroyed the area and forced community displacement. It also affects cattle herding, the main source of income for many indigenous communities, and often leads to frustration and gender-based violence.
Nalbo presented his field research in Myanmar’s Kachin State on how large-scale banana cultivation has taken over the region at a tremendous pace since the military junta opened up the country for foreign investment back in 2011. Forced eviction on indigenous lands and over usage of chemical fertilizers have destroyed the river and fish population in the region.
Finally, Rachel Killean from Queen’s University explained how criminalizing ecocide under the International Criminal Court (ICC) could strengthen the normative value of accountability, as well as becoming a potential deterrent for further harm against the environment, since the international community would not want to have ties with parties who are related with ecocide.
Yet, she warned how multinational corporations might survive reputational damage, since most likely that it is member states that will be held accountable under the current ICC regime. She also mentioned the problem of selectivity and double standards at the ICC, specifically how most of the tried cases so far have been from the Global South.
“Will ICC finally look up to the Global North in convicting ecocide? It remains a question.”
At the end of the day, law cannot solve the biggest problems we have. The introduction of criminal offences on ecocide will offer us opportunity, but it won’t solve our structural problems. It won’t solve the structural problems of mass consumption and disposability, which are heavily linked to the capitalism and neoliberal system we have today.
Ethics and Sustainability: Perspectives from the Food and Fashion Industries
By Viktoria Ivanova
The panel discussion on Ethics and Sustainability: Perspectives from the Food and Fashion Industries on Wednesday, March 24th gathered experts in business and human rights, ethics, Fairtrade®, local supply chains, and sustainable development from the food and fashion industries. The aim was to learn how they try to tackle the environmental and social issues in production and consumption of food and fashion.
Participants were given a real glimpse into the challenges and successes the two industries face in creating positive impact on people and the planet. At the end, participants were also able to find out ways they can help as more conscious consumers.
The speakers included:
Simone Wasmann – Campaign Decent Work Asia at Solidar Suisse
Simone Cipriani – United Nations Officer, Founder, and Head of the Ethical Fashion Initiative
Luca Puliafito – Spokesperson of Suisse Romande for Fairtrade Max Havelaar® in Switzerland
Sofia De Meyer – Co-Founder of Opaline SA
Moderator: Professor Dorothée Baumann-Pauly – Director of the Geneva Center for Business and Human Rights at the University of Geneva’s School of Economics and Management and Research Director at NYU’s Stern Center for Business and Human Rights.
The panel discussion evolved around four key themes: standards; implementation and compliance of standards; comparison of the food and fashion industries; and the role of consumers.
Below are some reflections from the speakers on these themes.
Standards
In terms of standards that aim to protect the environment and workers in the food and fashion industries, participants learned about several types of them.
For starters, Luca Puliafito explained that the Fairtrade Max Havelaar® organization certifies producers who meet the label’s strict social, environmental, and economic standards which are based on the International Labor Organization’s social, economic, and environmental pillars. After undergoing audits and meeting the requirements, producers are certified to trade products carrying the Fairtrade Max Havelaar® label.
Another label is the Certified B Corporation®, which is directly linked to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and requires certified companies to receive regular audits. Additionally, farmers, spinners, and brands can certify organic cotton in their supply chains by following and applying the Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS), which requires certain ecological and social criterias to be met.
While labels provide a framework for companies to be on the right path and help marginally improve standards in supply chains, they are focused on control and do not involve or engage workers enough, according to Simone Wasmann. She argued that corporate strategies need to involve the workers and they must take responsibility in providing workers freedom of association and bargaining rights instead of only certifying environmental practices and decent working conditions, which can be easier to attain. Companies must follow the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights Due Diligence.
Implementation and Compliance of Standards
The implementation and compliance of many of the mentioned standards is an ongoing practice for many companies and brands. Realistically, it is a challenge for producers and companies to meet all of the aspects of standards.
But, as Simone Cipriani reminded, “brands are supposed to be responsible for what they produce, period.” They have to be responsible because within their supply chains is where all of the injustice happens.
Producers and companies are responsible for the quality of their product, which is directly linked to their implementation and compliance with standards, said Sofia De Meyer. They are therefore responsible not only to the consumers but also to the workers and the environment they work with.
Simone Wasmann reminded us that there is a “huge difference out there in standards.” Some rely on minimum standards, instead of pushing brands and companies to do better. The entire supply chain must be assessed and responsibility must be taken to improve and change business practices.
Comparing the Food and Fashion Industries
According to Luca Puliafito, there are good results in the food industry in following ethical and sustainable standards. Yet, “there is space for many improvements in the textile supply chain, and unfortunately many producers and companies are still not willing to follow the Fairtrade® standard because of its complexity. This is the reality.”
At the heart of intentions is a company’s purpose, explained Sofia De Meyer. If companies want to maximize profits, they will go around all standards to meet their purpose. To her, a company with a strong mission cannot be scaled up easily because it is rooted in a local supply chain which creates and thrives in local ecosystems. Larger multinational corporations need to consider creating local ecosystems in the places they operate to meet sustainable and ethical missions.
As Simone Cipriani also pointed out, “we need to change the business model from maximizing the shareholder value to the value of the whole system, the environment, the workers, and the supply chain.”
Regardless, “while change is happening, it remains niche and larger companies have a long way to go,” said Simone Wasmann.
Role of Consumers
Lastly, all speakers agreed that while consumers have a very strong role to play in improving the food and fashion industries, the problems are much bigger than the individual decision of the consumer. Their role might be in fact, overrated.
The issues expand to the political sphere and require legal action that would mandate the industries to comply and perform due diligence in protecting workers and the environment.
Consumer education is very important. While consumers in Europe and the United States currently carry the most consumer power and exercise it, the majority of consumers around the world such as in India and China are still not as active in demanding sustainability and ethics from companies. As the rest of the world’s consumers enter the middle class, they too will begin to demand change.
What consumers can do is to try to consume less and better. They can think about where they can buy better and enquire about what is behind the label on their products. Taking the time to research what brands stand for and how they operate will help consumers consume more consciously.
On a final note, not only do consumers, policymakers, and companies have power and responsibility to act, so too do journalists and social media influencers who write about consumption and influence consumers’ purchasing decisions. They must use their voices to speak for the right causes and ask the right questions.
The Geneva Sustainability Week is an annual student project in collaboration with IHEID and Université de Genève with the aim to bring sustainability discussion into higher education institutions. Events will be held during the whole week as well as a week-long art exhibition at the Graduate Institute. See the program here: https://www.sustainabilityweek.ch/geneva/
The Graduate Press - La Gazette de la Paix 
Pingback: Concluding Sustainability Week Switzerland: A People’s Assembly – The Graduate Press