We meet here in Stockholm today because, fifty years ago, lawyers, political leaders, scientists, and economists came up with a vision to bring together the world and to begin to consider the nexus between environment, development, and poverty.
The world at that time was dealing with bubbling rivers and acid rain. Environmental pollution was something we were just beginning to understand, and we did not have the tools with which to address these challenges. There were also the beginnings of an understanding that environmental pollution is something that transcends borders; that even if one nation does what it can, this would not necessarily guarantee that citizens would be free from pollution. And there was an understanding that the biodiversity upon which we all rely was not infinite. And we began to understand that carbon dioxide emissions would impact our future. So, in 1972, the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment set the stage for this fifty-year journey.
This journey had some important stops along the way. In 1992, in Rio de Janeiro, the world enshrined the concept of sustainable development in our thinking and embarked on the three Rio treaties that we all know: desertification, biodiversity, and climate change. We saw other precedents set by way of the World Heritage Convention, the Convention on Migratory Species and so many more.
In two decades between Stockholm and Rio, over 1,100 international legal instruments on environmental issues were conceived. The Rio Conference moved environmental law even further, and in three decades since environmental laws have grown dramatically. According to UNEP’s first global report on the rule of environmental law, 176 countries now have environmental laws. Furthermore, 164 countries created cabinet-level bodies responsible for environment protection. Some 156 countries have enshrined the right to a healthy environment in their constitutions or in other national frameworks.
But as you well know, law does not necessarily mean justice. On this front, we have some way to travel. Despite a 38-fold increase in environmental laws, fully implementing and enforcing these laws is one of the greatest challenges we face as we seek to address the triple planetary crisis: the crisis of climate change, the crisis of nature and biodiversity loss, and the crisis of pollution and waste.
Science has revealed the sheer scale of the triple planetary crisis. We understand the immense pressures that we face, and that it is the most vulnerable communities, while least responsible, who will suffer the most. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which we at UNEP are proud to host together with our friends at the World Metrological Organization, tells us that global warming has caused climate injustice and dangerous disruption to the natural world. Science has also told us that biodiversity loss is undermining efforts to hit the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and that pollution and waste are killing millions of people each year.
So why, even as science has held up the evidence with ever greater precision for 50 years, have regulations, laws and policies not kept pace? To answer this, we require a frank discourse on issues around the science to policy interface. This interface hasn’t translated into enforcement or moved into institutional structures. It has been, at best, a meandering road. There needs to be a stronger understanding that the laws of the land must be informed by science. These two two communities do not speak enough to each other. Consequently, the justice system does not deliver what it needs to.
Now, laws are put on the books by our Parliaments, but we all know Parliamentarians do not take the longer view and are often limited to four-year electoral cycles. They are not thinking about future generations. This is where law and the importance of justice comes in. It is critical to securing the future.
Nevertheless, there are some very exciting developments taking place. In October of 2021, the Human Rights Council recognized the human right to a healthy, safe, and sustainable environment. This is a big milestone, as we know that these rights are under massive pressure. According to Global Witness, 227 environmental defenders were killed in 2020. This averages almost four people every week of the year. The year 2020 was indeed the most dangerous year on record for people defending their homes, their environment, their lands, their livelihoods, and their ecosystems – which are vital for biodiversity and vital for the climate.
The past fifty years has also seen the genesis of many multilateral environmental agreements. There are in fact over 500 multilateral environmental agreements, the majority of which were established since the Stockholm conference. Are these agreements enough? Is more of the same going to fix the challenges we face? There is significant scope for more legal imagination in my view, so that we can find effective ways that laws can integrate these developments and inform citizens and politicians alike.
Friends,
Environmental rule of law is a powerful concept. We at UNEP take pride in the fact that it was first referenced in a Governing Council resolution in 2013, which looked at advancing environmental sustainability through legal systems. Since 2013, the importance of environmental rule of law has been acknowledged by Member States in a number of fora. This includes the UN Environment Assembly resolution that adopted the Fifth Montevideo programme and the political declaration by Member States at the commemoration of UNEP@50 a few months ago in Nairobi, Kenya.
To be effective, environmental rule of law must deliver on seven key elements. One, fair, clear, and incremental. Two, public participation in decision-making and access to justice and information. Three, accountability and integrity of institutions and decision makers. Four, clear and coordinated mandates and roles. Five, accessible, fair, impartial, timely and responsive dispute resolution mechanisms. Six, recognition of the relationship between human rights and the environment. And seven, specific criteria for the interpretation of environmental rule of law.
Environmental rule of law as a concept provides a good basis for re-imagination and innovation as we seek to understand how to deliver on the notion of intergenerational justice, what this means and how to adjudicate for it beyond words and declarations that ministers sign up to. Deepening the conversation around justice in an intergenerational setting is critical for the legal community.
And as we have these discussions, it is important not just to speak of environmental rights, but the rights of the environment. We have several examples of legal identities granted to rivers and mountains and other inanimate objects. This matters for indigenous people. It also matters because in this linear economic model where we discard and waste relentlessly on the planet, does not the environment also have rights?
A third area to think about is the proposed global instrument to end plastic pollution, which Member States agreed to begin work towards at the fifth session of the UN Environment Assembly in Nairobi. As we seek to deliver on this ambitious mandate in under two years, we have a real opportunity to re-imagine multilateralism, moving towards what the UN Secretary-General calls modern, inclusive and networked multilateralism.
The UN Charter reminds us that this is about “we the peoples”, because this is not just about states. To live up to the spirit of these words, people’s voices must be heard as we deliberate on treaties and such global instruments For example, as we deliberate on the contours of the treaty to end plastic pollution, we want to hear from waste pickers – many of whom live in the informal economy. They want decent jobs and are bound to have a strong opinions on, and indeed an understanding of, how we can be successful in our efforts.
Similarly, it is important to hear from businesses in this journey to solutions. Excluding these voices will simply not work. So, are we willing to dare to dream of a new kind of environmental multilateralism? This is why I am encouraging negotiators to dream a little before they get stuck into setting the fences around the Agreement.
You, as judges, have a key role to play in all of this because people are increasingly turning to the law for justice. On climate alone, UNEP analysis revealed that between 2017 and 2020, the number of climate change-related cases brought before the courts more than doubled. Our 2022 update will point to a further explosion. The work of the Global Judicial Institute on the Environment and specialized environmental courts and tribunals is crucial in this regard – so that judges today are equipped with the knowledge necessary to advocate fairly for people and the climate and to truly understand the importance of intergenerational justice.
So, in closing let me say that the work of the law matters: for communities; for scientists; for political leaders and so on. Law lays the very foundation of our society. The Global Judicial Institute on the Environment is critical to strengthen these foundations. We at UNEP are proud and honoured to accompany you on this journey. As we roll out the fifth Montevideo National Environmental Law Programme, we count on your support to make this a reality, and indeed a success. Thank you for your support.
